- From: Liam R. E. Quin <liam@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 24 May 2018 16:37:25 -0400
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: Fuzzy Ma <ulima.ums@gmail.com>, www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>
On Thu, 2018-05-24 at 13:25 -0700, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > > [...] > In addition to the rounding issues > you've already found, both points have to lie on the circle, and when > they're that close together a very tiny perturbation can have a large > visible effect on the orientation of the circle. Sure - the context is what would happen if we redefined 360 to allow a full circle - there's no mileage in 0, as you noted - and the WG already agreed to this in principle it seems. > The most stable way to do a full circle is with two half-circle arcs, > because it's maximally resistant to such perturbations, and quite > easy > to compute where the endpoint should go without trig. Or use the circle element, as appropriate. Yes. Thanks. Liam -- Liam Quin, W3C, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/ Staff contact for Verifiable Claims WG, SVG WG, XQuery WG Improving Web Advertising: https://www.w3.org/community/web-adv/ Personal: awesome vintage art: http://www.fromoldbooks.org/
Received on Thursday, 24 May 2018 20:37:31 UTC