- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 08:36:31 -0800
- To: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
- Cc: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>, SVG public list <www-svg@w3.org>
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 10:27 PM, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au> wrote: > marker-pattern: 50% url() 50%; > > The former interpretation would result in: > > X-------X-------X You mean: --------X-------X > My feeling is that these two meanings of offset cater to different use > cases: > > * the former interpretation is for sliding the marker pattern so that it > looks nicer at the start of the path > > * the latter interpretation is for ensuring that the marker pattern isn't > painted at the start/end vertices of the path (since they might otherwise > collide with other markers or graphics there) > > The idea of an offset at the end of the path obviously only makes sense with > the second interpretation. Not quite. If makes just as much sense to have a "sliding" offset at the end, too, it just prevents any markers from painting there. It's similar to padding in CSS. It's indistinguishable from your interpretation if no percentages are used. > IMO both are useful and we should try to accommodate them both in the > syntax. I have no concrete suggestions for doing that yet. comma-separated optional arguments at the beginning and end of repeat()? Or just a single optional argument at the start giving the space that repeat() is repeated over, where percentages refer to the whole path(/segment) length? ~TJ
Received on Friday, 30 November 2012 16:37:25 UTC