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

Re: [svg2] radialGradient @fr constraints

From: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 22:38:31 -0700
Message-ID: <CAGN7qDAw=TMEz+uV4KJFmSQzDd47Jxn+ahZim84NU3MycpiBNw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
Cc: Jasper van de Gronde <th.v.d.gronde@hccnet.nl>, "www-svg@w3.org" <www-svg@w3.org>
That's an oversight. Neither should be allowed to be negative.

Rik

On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 5:55 PM, Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Reading the current draft, there seems to be an inconsistency. While 'r'
> is not allowed to be negative, there seems to be no restriction for 'fr'
> [1]. Is that the intention? As a note, Canvas gradient does not allow to be
> any radius negative[2].
>
> Greetings,
> Dirk
>
> [1]
> https://svgwg.org/svg2-draft/pservers.html#RadialGradientElementFRAttribute
> [2] http://dev.w3.org/html5/2dcontext/#dom-context-2d-createradialgradient
>
> On Sep 4, 2012, at 11:11 AM, Jasper van de Gronde <th.v.d.gronde@hccnet.nl>
> wrote:
>
> > On 2012-09-04 18:06, Rik Cabanier wrote:
> >> ... We also need to call out what happens with alpha once the circles
> >> start overlapping.
> >> I think use expectation is that the gradient does not interact with
> >> itself.
> > Good point. This also has bearing on negative radii. If a future spec
> > would allow negative radii it probably should not let "overlapped"
> > circles shine through (if it would, then it would clash with the current
> > interpretation, as the "bottom" half of the double cone would need to be
> > visible).
> >
>
>
Received on Saturday, 29 September 2012 05:38:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:52 GMT