- From: Justin Novosad <junov@google.com>
- Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 10:38:32 -0400
- To: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
- Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, "Jasper St. Pierre" <jstpierre@mecheye.net>, syhann@adobe.com, "whatwg@whatwg.org" <whatwg@whatwg.org>
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 6:17 AM, Justin Novosad <junov@google.com> wrote: > >> >> So far, there are a few differences between the spec and the graphics API >> I work with (skia) that attracted my attention: >> 1) the line caps on individual dashes: this is not yet resolved, and it >> is pretty far on my to do list (low volume of complaints) >> > > Can you tell me what is wrong with line caps on dashes? Is that your > proposal to not have dashes on join and endcaps? > I just re-tested this, and it looks like the problem was partially fixed under my radar (a skia improvement probably?). There is still the issue that dashes of length 0 are not being rendered in Chrome. When using round lineCaps, for example, a dash of length 0 should be rendered as a dot. So that part still needs to be fixed. Some devs are currently working around the issue by using small values (e.g. 0.001) instead of 0. > > >> 2) the way of handling dash sequences with an odd number of elements >> (concatenate the sequence onto itself to make it even): this was easy to >> resolve, although I have reservations about this. I think it may feel >> unnatural to many graphics designers. >> > > Yes, that looked very odd to me too. Usually when you set an array, you > get the same array values back. > To bad that it already landed in 3 browsers... > The Abilene paradox strikes again :-( > >> 3) The method of mapping the dash pattern to the path: I suspected this >> might be a problem, but I didn't really pay much attention to it until this >> thread started. >> 4) Inflating paths: this did not worry me at all. I was confident that >> any differences in results would be negligible and decided not to even >> investigate unless someone reported a bug. >> > > True. It didn't really matter for now. However, if we allow getting the > stroke outlines in the future, we needed a better description how stroking > is done. > The current wording of "Sweeping a line" describes how you create a stroke > region and not an "inflated path". > +1 to that. > >> >
Received on Tuesday, 15 October 2013 14:39:00 UTC