- From: Dirk Schulze <vbs85@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2010 16:35:34 +0200
- To: Jeff Schiller <codedread@gmail.com>
- Cc: www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>
Sorry, I misunderstood Jeff. The Spec says the following:
elliptical-arc-argument:
nonnegative-number comma-wsp? nonnegative-number comma-wsp?
number comma-wsp flag comma-wsp flag comma-wsp coordinate-pair
The relevant part of Jeff's Code:
<path id="svgbar" d="m23,45 a7,7 0 1 00,10z"/>
Like you can see, on FireFox and Opera, the first zero represents the flag, the second zero the first coordinate of the coordinate-pair.
This is NOT valid acording to the Spec. There must be a comma-wsp after the second flag.
comma-wsp:
(wsp+ comma? wsp*) | (comma wsp*)
This tells us, that comma-wsp must begin with either a comma or a space. So my interpretation is, that WebKit is right and the other browsers are more tollerant than they should be.
Cheers
Dirk
Am Montag, den 05.04.2010, 08:23 -0500 schrieb Jeff Schiller:
> I misinterpreted this - I think the reason is that a leading zero is
> not valid for numbers greater than or equal to 1 so 0100 should
> probably be interpreted as 0,100?
>
> Two more data points:
>
> * Batik 1.7 renders it
> * Inkscape does not render it
>
> Regards,
> Jeff
>
> On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 7:49 AM, Jeff Schiller <codedread@gmail.com> wrote:
> > <svg width="100" height="100" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg"
> > xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
> > <g>
> > <title>Layer 1</title>
> > <path id="svgbar" d="m23,45a7,7 0 1 00,10h54a7,7 0 1 00,-10z"/>
> > </g>
> > </svg>
> >
> > Is the following path correct according to the grammar at
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG11/paths.html#PathDataBNF ? I guess the
> > grammar also needs to take into account the rule that "Superfluous
> > white space and separators such as commas can be eliminated"
> >
> > i.e. is it legal for browsers to skip the space and comma between the
> > largeArcFlag and the sweepFlag because those values can only be 0 or
> > 1?
> >
> > * Mozilla, Opera and IE9 allow this.
> > * WebKit does not.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Jeff
> >
Received on Monday, 5 April 2010 14:36:09 UTC