- From: Sylvain Galineau <galineau@adobe.com>
- Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 16:50:58 -0800
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>
On 12/5/13 4:41 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: >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. ^_^ I'm only suggesting we *define* this general behavior. To put it another way, if an implementation did this today it's not clear to me which bit of the spec makes them obviously non-conformant. As long as it's clear the result *can* be n paths I think we're good. > >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. Well, if you have a threshold that selects a single pixel you may already be having an awesome time :)
Received on Friday, 6 December 2013 00:51:26 UTC