Subject:
|
Re: BFC: LITS 2
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Fri, 31 Mar 2000 16:55:00 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1863 times
|
| |
|
|
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
<http://www.lugnet.com/cad/dev/?n=3219> for the start, and
<http://www.lugnet.com/cad/dev/?n=3210> for the finish.
In <http://www.lugnet.com/cad/dev/?n=3219>, Lars quoted & wrote:
> > Maybe it would be better to drop WINDING UNKNOWN and specify that the default
> > value for CLIPPING is ON. File authors would use CLIPPING OFF for double-sided
> > or non-compliant sections of code. Note that the CLIPPING default would really
> > only effect the main file in a rendering, because superfiles would pass down
> > their clip-setting to subfiles.
> >
> > Curent_Clip = Local_Clip and Super_File_Clip
> >
> > Making this change would bring us closer to a consensus, it would simplify the
> > spec and keep it clean, and would eliminate overlapping and potentially
> > confusing functions.
>
> Yes.
I haven't reviewed the rest of the thread yet, so this may be a
point/concesion I dropped.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In <http://www.lugnet.com/cad/dev/?n=3213>, Rui made a long discussion
pertaining to CLIPPING being a local option, and being able to clip
subfiles, even when the parents aren't BFC-certified. I'm not going to
quote it here, because I would have to include nearly the entire
message. Please follow the link, and read the original message.
There is one overriding reason why subfiles can *not* be BFC'ed when
their referencing-superfiles are not certified: there is no way to tell
whether the subfile should be inverted or normal. Allowing local
clipping cannot override this limitation.
Steve
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: BFC: LITS 2
|
| (...) I have to read this better to make an opinion, later ! (...) Now you don't like local clipping anymore ? too or tree mails before you were in favour or am I mistaken ? I should we make complicated spec for clipping, just because of one stupid (...) (25 years ago, 2-Apr-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | BFC: LITS 2
|
| 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 (...) (25 years ago, 30-Mar-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
24 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
