- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 16:33:57 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
- Cc: "whatwg@whatwg.org" <whatwg@whatwg.org>, syhann@adobe.com
On Thu, 5 Sep 2013, Rik Cabanier wrote:
>
> we've looked over the algorithm in the Canvas spec that describes how
> strokes are computed. [1]
> We think that this section is making some incorrect assumptions. For
> instance, the dashes are calculated over the total lenght of all subpaths,
> but each subpath should be treated separately.
That's intentional, otherwise if you stroke an already-dashed line, you
get weird results.
> It's also a bit strange that the spec is trying to describe how to stroke.
It's trying to describe sufficient detail to get interoperable behaviour.
> For instance, it goes in minute detail on how dashes are applied but the
> hardest part of stroking ("inflating the paths in path perpendicular to the
> direction") is not described at all.
Is there any ambiguity in the part that's not described?
> Wouldn't it be better to remove all these steps and simply show the
> desired effect?
Yes. I try to do this as much as possible, but whenever I can't figure out
a way to describe something declaratively, I describe it imperatively
instead. If you have a way to describe it that is as precise, covers all
the same cases, yet is declarative, please don't hesitate to suggest it. I
unfortunately find that describing things declaratively is usually only
able to get one 90% of the way to a complete description.
> If not, what would be the best way to fix the wording?
What's wrong with the wording?
> The mailing list or a bug?
Either is fine and equivalent. (Don't do both, though, please!).
--
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 9 September 2013 16:34:21 UTC