- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 11:41:12 +1100
- To: Sylvain Galineau <galineau@adobe.com>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Sylvain Galineau <galineau@adobe.com> wrote: > On 12/5/13 4:17 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: >>I don't understand how you would do A. You've presented a simplified >>scenario where taking the axis-aligned bounding box works, but that >>fails the moment you do anything less trivial. > > I wouldn't say it fails; you *could* just take the bounding box that > encloses all the shapes you find. Whether the result is visually desirable > in all or most cases is a different story though. So yeah, my first > inclination is best dismissed here. We *could*, but we don't, and you're not suggesting we change the general behavior. ^_^ Having a situation where you take the provided shape if it's a single fully-connected region, but the bounding box if there's a single disconnected pixel, sounds pretty terrible. ~TJ
Received on Friday, 6 December 2013 00:42:01 UTC