- From: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 18:17:46 -0500
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 5:13 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 2:51 PM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote: >> ______ >> / \ >> / \ >> / /\ \ >> / / \ \ > > Huh. Yeah, you're right. Don't know why I didn't see that > immediately. And since applying a manhattan distance metric really > *is* just like tracing it with a square brush, this is exactly what > would result. Are you certain about that? It seems to me that you'd have to trace with a diamond shape (centered around the edge of the figure you're tracing) to get Manhattan distance. The curve formed by remaining within a fixed Manhattan distance of a given point (a Manhattan circle) is certainly a diamond shape, not a square. In the diagram given, the pointy thing would remain pointy. However, I believe the corners of a square would get flattened, by the same logic. So even if I'm right, Manhattan distance isn't going to preserve sharp edges.
Received on Tuesday, 17 February 2009 23:18:25 UTC