- From: Dr. Olaf Hoffmann <Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 16:49:58 +0200
- To: www-svg@w3.org
Some time ago in my tutorial I wrote an article about those wallpaper groups and additionally on penrose tiles and it did not take a long time to find out that due to different bugs in viewers, the pattern feature was not ready to use with typical viewers. Typical reasons are blurring of the pattern for example in Opera, scaling/transform problems in firefox (not sure, if already fixed in current the version), some funny gaps for example in the adobe plugin and maybe firefox (?) and of course the obvious problem with overflow. I think, really undefined is only the behaviour, if there is an overlap. This was discussed in this mailing list, but there was no agreement to define this for SVG 1.1 second edition, therefore I think it was added a note, that the behaviour is not defined - from my point of view this means, authors have only take into account differences, if there is an overlap, else the undefinedness will have no visible effect, if the overflow property is not always ignored as currently. To interprete overflow="visible", as overflow="hidden" is obviously always a bug of the viewer, if there is something outside of the viewBox. Only if the behaviour for overlapping painted elements is surprising, this is no bug, because behaviour is undefined. For those cases, authors still have to clip their master template in such a way, that overlaps are avoided. For some symmetry groups it is not meaningful to clip to a rectangle, but often it is no problem to clip to another shape - therefore a combination of overflow="visible" with some author defined clipping path can already help to solve many practical problems like the accuracy gaps of some viewers. However, my conclusion from the previous discussion and the observation of viewer bugs was, that SVG 1.1 pattern and its implementations are not really ready for use for advanced pattern. To get a defined behaviour, authors still have to do this for periodic pattern in the same way as for aperiodic pattern as penrose tiles - with use and transform ;o) Especially p3... and p6... groups are always a problem, because one practically has always problems with overflows and artifacts like accuracy gaps etc. For groups with lower symmetries or symmetries more related to a rectangle one can more often work around the problems with some clever considerations to get some meaningful result with pattern. And of course, over the years, more and more authors will come to similar conclusions about viewer behaviour and will ask again about the issue ;o) Olaf
Received on Tuesday, 4 October 2011 14:50:27 UTC