- From: Boris Dalstein via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2019 00:23:42 +0000
- To: public-svg-issues@w3.org
@AmeliaBR Yes, that's what we meant. We think (well, correct me @tatarize if I missunderstood your opinion) that for closed subpaths, there should be exactly one `marker-mid` at the start/end position of each closed subpath. Furthermore, we think that there should be no `marker-start` neither `marker-end` at that position. And in fact, this seems to be what everyone agrees on in the minutes linked above. If an SVG author wants a different marker at the start of a subpath than its end, then they shouldn't close the subpath. Finally, although this is somewhat orthogonal to the considerations above, each open subpath should have its own `marker-start` and `marker-end`. This would make marker rendering (or any rendering for that matter), invariant to reordering of the subpaths, as I believe it should be. For example, the path `M 0 0 L 1 1 M 2 2 L 3 3` should have the exact same markers as the path `M 2 2 L 3 3 M 0 0 L 1 1`, that is two `marker-start` (at 0,0 and 2,2), two `marker-end` (at 1,1 and 3,3), and zero `marker-mid`. Instead, the current standard considers these two paths non-equivalent, and render their markers at different positions, which doesn't make much sense from a topological perspective, and is inconsistent with how `stroke-linejoin` is defined (`stroke-linejoin` does make perfect sense from a topological perspective). -- GitHub Notification of comment by dalboris Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/svgwg/issues/753#issuecomment-560180176 using your GitHub account
Received on Monday, 2 December 2019 00:23:44 UTC