- From: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
- Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 16:32:15 +0000
- To: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
- CC: Nikos Andronikos <nikos.andronikos@cisra.canon.com.au>, Erik Dahlström <ed@opera.com>, "www-svg@w3.org" <www-svg@w3.org>
On Feb 27, 2014, at 5:59 AM, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au> wrote: > Cameron McCormack wrote: >> Nikos Andronikos wrote: >>> My suggestion would change the meaning of d="" to the equivalent of >>> d="M0,0", and d=none would no longer exist. >>> d="L100 100" would also be valid as the "M0,0" would be inserted >>> automatically. >>> In all these cases >>> * the path would render >>> * the path would contribute to ancestor's bounding box (unless rendering >>> disabled via display:none or something) >>> >>> But I hadn't thought about the requirement that d="" disables rendering. >>> This means my suggestion would not be backwards compatible and so >>> probably needs to be discarded. >> >> Yes I don't think we should do this, for that reason; we should make >> markers suddenly render at (0,0) when you write <path d=""/> or <path/>. > > *shouldn't make > I agree here, invalid path, <path/> and <path d=“”/> should not render and not contribute to the ancestors bounding boxes. I did not review model E and D in detail. Given that most implementations and the spec use one of the two models, we should stick to one of the two. Greetings, Dirk
Received on Thursday, 27 February 2014 16:32:45 UTC