- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 14:45:08 -0800
- To: Stephen Chenney <schenney@google.com>
- Cc: www-svg@w3.org
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 2:37 PM, Stephen Chenney <schenney@google.com> wrote: > Thanks for the reply. > No problem on the linecaps issue. > I am confused by the marker discussion. I would expect "m 10 10 m 20 20" to > draw two markers, one at (10, 10) and one at (20, 20) because there are no > endpoints at all, just a lone point. And I expect "m 10 10 z m 20 20 z" to > draw four markers, because there are two lines of zero length, each with a > start- and end-point. There's no such thing as a "lone point" here, only zero-length segments. In "m 10 10 m 20 20", there are two such segments. Segments always have a start and end, so both start and end markers can show up on each. > And now another question in the same vein. The Implementation Notes for arcs > says the following: > "If the endpoints (x1, y1) and (x2, y2) are identical, then this is > equivalent to omitting the elliptical arc segment entirely. ... Continuous > animations that cause parameters to pass through invalid values are not a > problem. The motion remains continuous." > This does not seem consistent to me. If you have an animated arc with > non-butt linecaps drawn, and the animation causes the endpoint of the arc to > match the start point, I would expect to see the equivalent of a zero-length > path. Under the current implementation note, for a frame (or more) while the > animation passes through zero length the linecaps will flash out of > existence. That's not continuous. I believe that a better implementation > note would be "If the endpoints (x1, y1) and (x2, y2) are identical, then > this is equivalent to a zero-length line (a lineto) from one endpoint to the > other." Yes, that line appears inconsistent with the definitions elsewhere, and produces an unstable display. Your suggested change sounds good to me. ~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 22 November 2011 22:46:00 UTC