Re: Clarification on getBBox() with shapes of zero width

On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 2:51 PM, Robert Longson <longsonr@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
>


As a content developer, I expect the geometry of SVG elements to be correct.

Let me suggest this another way then.

I don't think introducing illogical hacks into the SVG spec to solve coding
problems for specific UA's sets a good precedent.

As a former UA implementer, I ask, what impact does this have on other
UA's?  Should they adopt your hack because you don't want to check for a
zero in your rendering pipeline?


>
> 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
>>
>
>


-- 
"*A child is a person who can't understand why someone would give away a
perfectly good kitten.*"
-- Doug Larson