- From: Robert Longson <longsonr@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 19:51:13 +0100
- To: Rick <graham.rick@gmail.com>
- Cc: www-svg@w3.org, dschulze@adobe.com, jackalmage@gmail.com, pdr@google.com
Received on Tuesday, 7 August 2012 18:51:41 UTC
In most cases nobody wants this so why clutter up UA code with it. In the extremely rare cases you need it I don't see why the svg file shouldn't have an "ugly hack" rather than having dozens of lines of mostly unused ugly hack UA code handle it. Robert On 7 August 2012 19:47, Rick <graham.rick@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 2:03 PM, Robert Longson <longsonr@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> If you want the shape included then give it a small non-zero >> width/height hidden visibility. >> > > Making a rectangle of zero width not render is logical, but it is still a > legal rectangle object and can be interacted with, so it should have > geometry semantics. > > Giving zero widths/heights a small value is an ugly hack. There must be a > better way. > > Is there no bottleneck in Cairo where you could discard ineligible shapes? > > -- > "*A child is a person who can't understand why someone would give away a > perfectly good kitten.*" > -- Doug Larson >
Received on Tuesday, 7 August 2012 18:51:41 UTC