On Tue, 2007-12-04 at 12:28 +0100, Marcel Toele wrote: > Lars/any dev with svn acces/anyone else, > > Can you please comment on the updated information about the > non-uniform scaling patch > (I've added extra information via Replies to that thread)
Sorry it took a bit, I've again been busier than I hoped for. I got the patch to work as intended, and can now start to look at problems with it. A major but fixable problem is that the bounding box does not get updated correctly when a sub-shape is large enough to be outside its super-shape, leading to dirt on the diagram. However, some of your previous comments seem to indicate that you expect sub-shapes to always be within the super-shape. If that is the case, the super-shape should limit its resize if it would put the sub-shape outside it. The sub-shape in the example that's anchored at the lower right doesn't appear, but that's a bug in the SVG path for it. Once I copied the first star's paths, it turned out fine, and the bottom/left anchors work fine. I'm not convinced that the default_scale attribute is the right way to go about handling the scaling issues. It means that whereas the super-shape ignores the absolute scale and just uses the coordinates as relative coordinates in a 2x2 cm space, the sub-shape actually uses the units of the SVG, modified by the default_scale. This is confusing: The coordinates of the super-shape and the sub-shape are now interpreted in different ways, one of which is controlled by a "default_scale" attribute whose meaning is not clear from context. If the default_scale was on the main shape, it would be less confusing and at the same time close a long-standing bug. Another problem with the default_scale is that it's defined relative to something that's not in the shape definition, namely the unit system. mm might be default in many locals (I frankly don't know, and would rather not have to remember), but how would the shape be rendered in the US, where inches or suchlike are the default? As I see it, the coordinates for the super-shape and the sub-shape should have the same meaning, or else editing the shape becomes a trap. Rather than the default_scale attribute we should, IMNSHO, have either a unit definition or a bounding-box definition with units. Am I right to think that there is no such thing as a sub-sub-shape? When I try, the sub-sub-shape appears, but not different from when it's a sub-shape. I'm not included to apply the patch until we have agreement on the default_scale matter. -Lars _______________________________________________ Dia-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/dia-list FAQ at http://live.gnome.org/Dia/Faq Main page at http://live.gnome.org/Dia
