- 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