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

Dirk,

You've said this a few times but it is not true: " A shape with one
dimension does not get rendered and is in error."
The spec says it does not get rendered, but it is not in error.

For getBBox() you can calculate the size of rects, ellipses, and circles
analytically from just the width/height/radii without creating any
renderers. This is simple because getBBox() is exclusive of "complicated'
things like strokes, markers, etc, so you can rely on the attributes alone.

Philip


On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com> wrote:

>
> On Aug 7, 2012, at 12:23 PM, Rick <graham.rick@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > 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?
>
> It is not necessarily a hack. It is an inconsistency in the spec. A lot of
> engines create renderers for rendering content. A shape with one dimension
> does not get rendered and is in error. That is the spec text. So if it is
> in error, why do you expect reasonable results from it? It is not just
> Firefox that behaves like that, but also WebKit and all WebKit based
> browsers/applications.
>
> Greetings,
> Dirk
>
> >
> >
> > 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
>
>