You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Imagine a 2x2 tile that consists of just a vertical line through the center. When this tile (and only such tiles) appears on the right boundary of the drawing, we might want to set the width of the drawing to end just after the vertical line, treating the tile as width ~1, instead of the full width of 2. And similarly when on the left side, we'd like the left border to start later if the space to the left of the line isn't needed.
A natural mechanism for this would be viewBox="-1 -1 2 2" overflowBox="-0.1 -1 0.2 2" (for a vertical line of width 0.2). In other words, the overflowBox is smaller than the viewBox, and used to compute the drawing's bounding box when specified. I doubt anyone currently uses overflowBox smaller than viewBox, so this is a natural extension. The downside of using overflowBox is that the name isn't right; it'd be more aptly named boundingBox. Probably we should rename but view overflowBox as an alias for backward compatibility.
I also realize that overflowBox currently ignores the first two numbers; it really only needs width and height. It could request just two numbers (but for backward compatibility, ignore the first two if four are specified). But the new boundingBox actually needs the first two numbers to know what exactly to crop when it's unneeded.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Imagine a 2x2 tile that consists of just a vertical line through the center. When this tile (and only such tiles) appears on the right boundary of the drawing, we might want to set the width of the drawing to end just after the vertical line, treating the tile as width ~1, instead of the full width of 2. And similarly when on the left side, we'd like the left border to start later if the space to the left of the line isn't needed.
A natural mechanism for this would be
viewBox="-1 -1 2 2" overflowBox="-0.1 -1 0.2 2"
(for a vertical line of width 0.2). In other words, theoverflowBox
is smaller than theviewBox
, and used to compute the drawing's bounding box when specified. I doubt anyone currently usesoverflowBox
smaller thanviewBox
, so this is a natural extension. The downside of usingoverflowBox
is that the name isn't right; it'd be more aptly namedboundingBox
. Probably we should rename but viewoverflowBox
as an alias for backward compatibility.I also realize thatoverflowBox
currently ignores the first two numbers; it really only needs width and height. It could request just two numbers (but for backward compatibility, ignore the first two if four are specified). But the newboundingBox
actually needs the first two numbers to know what exactly to crop when it's unneeded.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: