- From: Vladimir Vukicevic <vladimirv@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 28 May 2006 11:38:09 +0200
Doesn't a zero-width (or zero-height, as long as it's only one) degenerate into a vertical (horizontal) line when stroked, due to the line width? A filled rectangle doesn't, because the area to fill is defined exactly by the rectangular path (which has 0 thickness), whereas a stroked path takes the line width into account to compute the area to fill. Now, to be fair, I don't really care either way, just looking for consistency... should using fillRect/strokeRect be defined as convenience functions doing the same job as creating a rectangular path and calling fill/stroke? I'd expect the following to give me a 10 pixel line, the same as if I had just done moveTo(x, 10); lineTo(x,20); stroke(); beginPath(); moveTo(x, 10); lineTo(x, 20); lineTo(x+0, 20); lineTo(x+0, 10); closePath(); stroke(); Otherwise, we end up with different results for what is logically the same operation, I'd think? - Vlad On 5/20/06, Anne van Kesteren <fora at annevankesteren.nl> wrote: > I think http://whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#strokerect must > have no effect when it has a zero height or width (or both). Currently > Safari, Firefox and Opera act that way when they are both zero and > Safari acts that way for all cases. Firefox and Opera draw a small > line when either is larger than zero but that can easily be changed. > It also makes the method more consistent with the other two. > > For those "If either height or width are zero, this method has no > effect." should probably be changed to "If either height or width are > zero, this method must have no effect." > > > -- > Anne van Kesteren > <http://annevankesteren.nl/> > >
Received on Sunday, 28 May 2006 02:38:09 UTC