[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#36315: 27.0.50; SVG transparency handling is inaccurate
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
bug#36315: 27.0.50; SVG transparency handling is inaccurate |
Date: |
Tue, 02 Jul 2019 17:26:11 +0300 |
> Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2019 18:46:28 +0900
> From: YAMAMOTO Mitsuharu <mituharu@math.s.chiba-u.ac.jp>
> Cc: pipcet@gmail.com,
> 36315@debbugs.gnu.org
>
> > > > Again, it isn't something entirely rational, it just sounds weird to
> > > > me. Imagine that users libxml2 would need to call libiconv to decode
> > > > UTF-8 encoded text in an XML file, for example. Doesn't look right.
> > >
> > > The situation for libcairo and librsvg should be familiar to us: we
> > > are directly using Emacs core functionality even when working with
> > > several major or minor modes.
> >
> > Not sure what this alludes to.
>
> The correspondence is:
>
> libcairo - Emacs core functionality
> librsvg - Major/minor mode (e.g., Org mode)
>
> Major/minor modes are not designed to be used in their own right, but
> with (the direct use of) Emacs core functionality. Would Org mode
> users complain that it looks like they are using Emacs and not Org
> mode?
>
> Even the current SVG support code does something like this:
>
> /* Create a new RsvgHandle object. */
> rsvg_handle = rsvg_handle_new ();
>
> /* Do some tasks with rsvg_handle. */
>
> /* Free the RsvgHandle object. */
> g_object_unref (rsvg_handle);
>
> Do you reject this code because it looks like we are using gobject and
> not librsvg?
>
> > One thing that bothers me with using sub-libraries is that we now need
> > another entry in dynamic-library-alist, which means complications if
> > Cairo ever changes its ABI and we will need to use libcairo-N.dll
> > where N > 2.
>
> The patch also removes the entry for gdk-pixbuf, so the situation is
> not getting worse.
>
> FWIW, if we want to fix bug#35548 (use of rsvg_handle_write and
> rsvg_handle_close that are being deprecated), then we will need to add
> an entry for gio.
We clearly disagree, and I already said I didn't think this is worth
an argument. Feel free to do whatever you see fit.