Subject:
|
BFC: LITS 2
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Thu, 30 Mar 2000 22:17:00 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1584 times
|
| |
|
|
Rui has stated that there are outstanding issues with the BFC proposal
that are not included in the issues list at the start of that proposal.
With this message, I am going to review the messages from the "Line in
the Sand" thread, which started at
<http://www.lugnet.com/cad/dev/?n=3156>. I will repost the raised
issues, and note either that they are still open or how they were
resolved. Or at least re-iterate where we currently stand.
This may take me a few messages.
Current proposal: <http://www.geocities.com/partsref/bfcspecv4.txt>
In <http://www.lugnet.com/cad/dev/?n=3163>, Steve wrote:
> Issue 1: should the CLIPPING setting be strictly local to each file, or should
> it be persistent between files, especially be pushed downward in the recursive
> subfile-referencing process?
I believe this issue is resolved. Effectively, the explicit CLIPPING is
local. Each subfile sets its own CLIPPING.
> Issue 2: What is this CERTIFY statement? That one came out of left field.
This one is still in the air.
IMO, we should *keep* the CERTIFY, because it has an explicit meaning
that all other BFC tags can only imply.
It's even more important the NOCERTIFY option be retained, because this
the meaning behind this tag (that the current file is not wound
properly, and/or does not have subfile references marked) is not
captured by *any* of the other tags, either explicitly or implicitly.
> Issue 3: Do all files (in the root-file to current-file referencing chain) need
> to be certified to allow clipping, or not?
This issue has been hashed out and settled.
> Issue 4: Do we need a WINDING UNKNOWN statement?
There is still a NOWIND option in the proposed standard.
> Issue 5: Can a superfile disable clipping, overriding a subfile's CLIPPING ON
> command?
Yes. There are various reasons that the renderer might override a CLIP
tag for a subfile.
OK, more later.
Steve
|
|
Message has 5 Replies:
 | | Re: BFC: LITS 2
|
| Second in a series, collect them all... (...) I believe the language around the 'defaults' has been cleared up sufficiently. (...) Hmm. I don't think there was much more discussion about whether every file should have an explicit 0 BFC CCW CLIP (...) (25 years ago, 31-Mar-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | Re: BFC: LITS 2
|
| Here's the third message in my review of the "Line in the Sand" thread. This message covers my review from message #28 to message #40 in the thread (sorted by thread-view, not chronology). That's (URL) for the start, and (URL) for the finish. (...) (...) (25 years ago, 31-Mar-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | Re: BFC: LITS 2
|
| Fourth in the series, starting with message #41 in the "Line in the Sand" thread. Notice that I scanned past a number of messages before I got another 'open issue' hit. This posting covers up to & through message #83, the end of the thread. In (...) (25 years ago, 31-Mar-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | Re: BFC: LITS 2
|
| Fifth and final in the series. Summary of the recap. This concludes my review of the "Line in the Sand" thread. If I have overlooked any issues, important or trivial, feel free to point them out. If there's something I didn't mention in this thread, (...) (25 years ago, 31-Mar-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | Re: BFC: LITS 2
|
| (...) I think the discussion started before the "line in The Sand" thread ! (...) It seems that it is currently on version 9 ! isn't it ?, but file name was NOT changed, OK. (...) Well, if my memory doesn't fail me, I taught you were against local (...) (25 years ago, 2-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
24 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
