- From: Kalle Raita <kraita@nvidia.com>
- Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 11:12:18 +0200
- To: <www-svg@w3.org>
Hi All, I think that the test paint-stroke-205-t has some wrong assumptions. The test is about caps on zero length sub-paths. Implementation notes [1] says that the in the case of not finding a non-zero length segment in the subpath, default tangent of (1, 0) is used. In the test paint-stroke, the reference paths seem to assume (1, 1) default tangent. I cannot find any rotation transforms in the test content that would explain the difference. As a specific example, let's take a segment starting at line 141 of the test case file. <path d="M200,200L300,300M399.99,399.99L400.01,400.01M500,300L600,250" stroke="red" stroke-width="48"> <title>Red comparison - if visible - error</title> </path> <path d="M200,200L300,300M400,400ZM500,300L600,250" stroke="blue" stroke-width="50"> <title>Blue testcase covers all red if correct</title> </path> The blue test path moves to (400,400) and immediately closes the subpath. The subpath does not contain any segments with non-zero length, i.e., the default tangent is used. The red reference moves to (399.99,399.99) and draws line to (400.01, 400.01), generating a tangent with direction (1,1), which contradicts the spec request to align "with the positive x-axis in user space". As a side note, the test case could be split over multiple files to make it easier to map the SVG content to shapes on the screen. [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/SVGMobile12/implnote.html#PathElementImplementation Notes Yours, - Kalle Raita Kalle Raita NVIDIA Corporation Tel. +358 40 723 1441 kraita@nvidia.com http://eu.nvidia.com <http://eu.nvidia.com/> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Friday, 25 April 2008 09:13:55 UTC