W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > August 2012

Re: Clarification on getBBox() with shapes of zero width

From: Robert Longson <longsonr@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 19:51:13 +0100
Message-ID: <CAOu7Uv7NTgprC0UTe6puWp8snGC3wPdHNndTPrYR6SGfrTU4JQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Rick <graham.rick@gmail.com>
Cc: www-svg@w3.org, dschulze@adobe.com, jackalmage@gmail.com, pdr@google.com
In most cases nobody wants this so why clutter up UA code with it. In the
extremely rare cases you need it I don't see why the svg file shouldn't
have an "ugly hack" rather than having dozens of lines of mostly unused
ugly hack UA code handle it.


On 7 August 2012 19:47, Rick <graham.rick@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 2:03 PM, Robert Longson <longsonr@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> If you want the shape included then give it a small non-zero
>> width/height hidden visibility.
> Making a rectangle of zero width not render is logical, but it is still a
> legal rectangle object and can be interacted with, so it should have
> geometry semantics.
> Giving zero widths/heights a small value is an ugly hack.  There must be a
> better way.
> Is there no bottleneck in Cairo where you could discard ineligible shapes?
> --
> "*A child is a person who can't understand why someone would give away a
> perfectly good kitten.*"
> -- Doug Larson
Received on Tuesday, 7 August 2012 18:51:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 March 2017 09:47:29 UTC