- From: Kristof Zelechovski <giecrilj@stegny.2a.pl>
- Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2008 22:42:00 +0100
You considered the convex hull of the original lines to get that paradox; I had the stroke path segments in mind. (Stroke path segments are the path equivalent of the stroked curve when the stroke operator is not allowed and must be replaced by the fill operator). Each line corresponds to two parallel stroke path segments; two of them intersect and the other two get joint with an arc. One of the possible arcs is in the convex hull of those stroke path segments. While talking intersection instead of convexity is mathematically simpler, convexity is what is intended, intersection may be a technicality. I think the specification should specify the intention and not the technical means wherever possible. Cheers, Chris -----Original Message----- From: whatwg-bounces@lists.whatwg.org [mailto:whatwg-bounces at lists.whatwg.org] On Behalf Of Philip Taylor Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2008 10:25 PM To: Kristof Zelechovski Cc: WHATWG; Ian Hickson Subject: Re: [whatwg] Canvas line styles comments On 02/02/2008, Kristof Zelechovski <giecrilj at stegny.2a.pl> wrote: > The rounding arc should be chosen > so that it is not contained in the convex hull of the stroke path > segments terminated at the points where the arc begins. I believe I can see the idea there, but I can't quite tell what that phrase means about terminating. The "contained within" also seems inaccurate, because e.g. lineWidth=100;moveTo(0,0);lineTo(1,0);lineTo(1,1) would result in a convex hull that doesn't contain either arc, though I think it'd be alright if said "does not intersect" instead. A possible alternative that seems simpler and (I think) correct (except in the special parallel case): The rounding arc should be chosen so that if it was closed, it would not contain the join point. -- Philip Taylor excors at gmail.com
Received on Saturday, 2 February 2008 13:42:00 UTC