- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 05:16:27 +0000 (UTC)
On Mon, 27 Jul 2009, Gregg Tavares wrote: > > > > Could you explain what other interpretations of the following you think > > are reasonable?: > > > > # The source rectangle is the rectangle whose corners are the four points > > # (sx, sy), (sx+sw, sy), (sx+sw, sy+sh), (sx, sy+sh). > > # [...] > > # The destination rectangle is the rectangle whose corners are the four > > # points (dx, dy), (dx+dw, dy), (dx+dw, dy+dh), (dx, dy+dh). > > # > > # When drawImage() is invoked, the region of the image specified by the > > # source rectangle must be painted on the region of the canvas specified > > # by the destination rectangle [...] > > It's ambiguous because images have a direction. An image that starts at > 10 with a width of -5 is not the same as an image that starts at 6 with > a width of +5 any more than starting in SF and driving 5 miles south is > not the same as starting in Brisbane and driving 5 miles north. Huh. I've never considered images as having a direction. I've tried to add text to the spec to make sure that it's clear that no direction is implied here. On Wed, 29 Jul 2009, Gregg Tavares wrote: > > If it's so clear, why do you think 2 of the 4 browsers that implemented > it apparently got it wrong? The browsers only paid passing attention to the spec when implementing it; the spec was being written at the same time. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 3 August 2009 22:16:27 UTC