Re: On the connectors examples - is this intended in the 'use with symbols' example?

Hello world ;-)

Juergen Roethig wrote:
> 
> Smailus, Thomas O wrote:
>>
>> Circles mean something in logic gate diagrams – negating the signal.  
>> So an AND gate may or may not have a negated input and/or output.
>>
>>  
>>
>> How would this work in a logic diagram where we have an AND gate where 
>> we specify a gate (do we need to have the combinatorial explosion of 
>> gates defined when using circle or non-circle terminators)?
> 
> If you are interested in the practical usecase of "combinational and 
> sequential circuits" as an example for connectors in SVG, you might have 
> a look at my "SVG connector proposal" page. I just had a few minutes 
> time to provide two simple circuits as examples, using a real and 
> working "SVG reference point implementation". Just have a look at
> http://jroethig.de/geolog/connector.html#l2demcircuits
> 
> [...]
> 
> Referring to your specific question: The "circles" (or negations) are 
> done via marker-start and marker-end for the "connectors", although this 
> might also be achieved by a special symbol positioned at the start or 
> end of that connector, instead (basically just a case of personal 
> taste). But the negations would most probably not be achieved as a part 
> of the symbol for the specific gate.

As I just remembered, I would like to add that this is another perfect 
example for the sillyness of the precedence of CSS properties over 
presentation attribute values. If you now carefully realize all the 
negations at the inputs and outputs of the gates via markers at the 
start or end of the respective connectors (lines, polylines, paths, 
whatever) given by presentation attributes "marker-start" and/or 
"marker-end", one simple CSS rule
* { marker-start: none; marker-end: none }
(even when given in the user style sheet (!) of someones browser) will 
override all those nice negations given in the SVG source code ... you 
might try it by yourself! But this is another topic, the battle 
"breakage of useful content by bad design" vs. "breakage of silly 
content by removing silly rules" - so far, the latter seems to be a more 
important issue which needs to be avoided in any case.

Juergen Roethig

Received on Saturday, 8 November 2014 08:13:44 UTC