Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Semantics of units employed by [compute containment|cover scaling]. #1108

Closed
nigelmegitt opened this issue Jun 3, 2019 · 0 comments · Fixed by #1109
Closed

Semantics of units employed by [compute containment|cover scaling]. #1108

nigelmegitt opened this issue Jun 3, 2019 · 0 comments · Fixed by #1109

Comments

@nigelmegitt
Copy link
Contributor

The requirement for success in the first step of [compute containment scaling] and [compute over scaling] is that the units of TR and RR are the same, but this is rarely likely to be the case.

Propose replacing with a step to re-express image dimensions in the document coordinate space so that the resulting units are always the same.

In terms of units, there's no way any image resource will sensibly have, say, rw or % units, unless some processing step upstream has deliberately taken the intrinsic dimensions and re-expressed them in those units to get to TR. If the intent is to constrain document instances to express positions and sizes in pixels if they use embedded images, it's a strange way to achieve that goal.

Originally posted by @nigelmegitt in #1098

@skynavga skynavga self-assigned this Jun 3, 2019
@skynavga skynavga added this to the 2ED-FPWD milestone Jun 3, 2019
@skynavga skynavga changed the title [compute containment|over scaling] likely to fail Semantics of [compute containment|cover scaling] failure modes. Jun 3, 2019
@skynavga skynavga changed the title Semantics of [compute containment|cover scaling] failure modes. Semantics of units employed by [compute containment|cover scaling]. Jun 3, 2019
skynavga added a commit that referenced this issue Jun 18, 2019
Remove error condition from scaling procedures (#1108).
@skynavga skynavga removed their assignment Jun 18, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants