RE: What should the bbox of a path without a d attribute be?

On Wednesday, April 23, 2014 9:53 PM
Nikos Andronikos wrote:

>RESOLUTION: Bounding box for path/polygon/polyline with no data set (empty
or zero valid commands) should not contribute to ancestor bounding box

Hi Nikos,

Everything else looks good to me, but I suppose that the above is to meant
to handle the case of unions of paths, as within a shared parent, like a
<g>, or, presumably (if ever implemented), a <veUnion>. I am wondering if
there might be filters in which, through some sequence of the chaining of
filter primitives as in <feBlend> or <feImage>, there might not be a common
ancestor to two shapes, but where the net result would nevertheless be a
"union". We would still not want the bounding box to expand to include the
isolated empty point.

In the case of a script which would perform such a union, perhaps without
the direct reconstruction in DOM of a common ancestor to the two geometries,
we still would not want the isolated point to be considered. Might the
following rewording clarify the intent more clearly?

modified RESOLUTION: Bounding box for path/polygon/polyline with no data set
(empty or zero valid commands) should not contribute to bounding box of its
union with  other shapes, e.g., as in a shared ancestor such a <g>.

I'm not sure, actually, if this is needed, but might it help?

Cheers
David

Received on Thursday, 24 April 2014 12:31:59 UTC