<html>
  <head>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
  </head>
  <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
    <p>If it's helpful, I've created a gitlab branch here:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/Skrapion/cairo/commit/9c81cdd255cd2553ff99cf11e086f905d577e4a0">https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/Skrapion/cairo/commit/9c81cdd255cd2553ff99cf11e086f905d577e4a0</a><br>
    </p>
    Thanks for the reviews! Let me know if you would prefer for this to
    be based on just the CTM instead of both the CTM and device pixel.<br>
    <br>
    -Rick-<br>
    <br>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2018-10-29 13:29, Rick Yorgason
      wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote type="cite"
      cite="mid:517aa610-f507-5b01-5653-38ecbdc62546@firefang.com">
      <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
      <p>I think it makes sense to do both, but if we're only going to
        have one check, it should be the CTM, like i originally had.</p>
      <p>If we only test the device unit, then we run into weird
        scenarios. Let's say 1 device pixel is 0.3 CTM units. That means
        anything from [0-0.3] units *will* draw as a hairline, but
        anything from (0.3-1) will get rounded to 0 and won't draw at
        all. (Remember, ExtCreatePen takes the pen width as an integer.)
        So 0.3 and 1.0 draw, but 0.5 doesn't.</p>
      <p>-Rick-<br>
      </p>
      <br>
      <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2018-10-29 10:12, Bill Spitzak
        wrote:<br>
      </div>
      <blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAL-8oAjhZzV2220cqNeEPYsp9PszxPLBdXpm0yAWpKTyodLh7Q@mail.gmail.com">
        <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
          charset=utf-8">
        <div dir="ltr">Seems like it would be better to consistently use
          one device unit rather than the maximum of one device unit and
          one unit in the CTM.
          <div><br>
          </div>
          <div>The zero stuff is a real pain but I suspect trying to fix
            this in Cairo (and also support hairlines on other output
            devices) will be a lot of work.</div>
        </div>
        <br>
        <div class="gmail_quote">
          <div dir="ltr">On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 7:10 PM Rick Yorgason
            <<a href="mailto:rick@firefang.com"
              moz-do-not-send="true">rick@firefang.com</a>> wrote:<br>
          </div>
          <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
            .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
            <div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
              <p>Apologies for the delay. Here's the promised updated
                patch.</p>
              <p>The difference is now it considers the minimum size of
                both the canvas and the printer instead of just the
                canvas, zero-width strokes count as hairlines (although
                Cairo still seems to be culling strokes from getting to
                this function — that's a separate bug) and the
                documentation was updated for clarity.<br>
              </p>
              <p>Cheers,</p>
              <p>-Rick-<br>
              </p>
              <br>
              <div class="m_-909196513678428700moz-cite-prefix">On
                2018-10-19 12:12, Rick Yorgason wrote:<br>
              </div>
              <blockquote type="cite"> That shouldn't be. See page 675
                of the Postscript Language Reference: <a
                  class="m_-909196513678428700moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.adobe.com/content/dam/acom/en/devnet/actionscript/articles/PLRM.pdf"
                  target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.adobe.com/content/dam/acom/en/devnet/actionscript/articles/PLRM.pdf</a><br>
                <br>
                <blockquote type="cite">A line width of 0 is acceptable,
                  and is interpreted as the thinnest line that can be
                  rendered at device resolution—1 device pixel wide.
                  However, some devices cannot reproduce 1-pixel lines,
                  and on high-resolution devices, they are nearly
                  invisible.</blockquote>
                <br>
                -Rick-<br>
                <br>
                <br>
                <div class="m_-909196513678428700moz-cite-prefix">On
                  2018-10-19 09:27, Bill Spitzak wrote:<br>
                </div>
                <blockquote type="cite">
                  <div dir="ltr">Hairlines are not always 1 pixel wide.
                    For Postscript setting the line width to 0.0 gives
                    you a hairline that seems to be about 1/150" which
                    is quite a few pixels on modern printers, and was
                    > 1 even on the first Apple Laserwriter.</div>
                  <br>
                  <div class="gmail_quote">
                    <div dir="ltr">On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 6:21 AM Rick
                      Yorgason <<a href="mailto:rick@firefang.com"
                        target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">rick@firefang.com</a>>
                      wrote:<br>
                    </div>
                    <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
                      .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">It
                      looks like you're right about the device units. In
                      cases where the <br>
                      canvas DPI is lower than the device DPI, the
                      "smallest printable line" <br>
                      is 1, as in my original patch (because
                      ExtCreatePen only accepts <br>
                      integral pen widths), but when the canvas DPI is
                      higher, the "smallest <br>
                      printable line" is <br>
`_cairo_matrix_transformed_circle_major_axis(stroke_ctm_inverse, 1.0)`.<br>
                      <br>
                      I haven't looked any further into what's culling
                      zero-width lines yet. <br>
                      For now, I'm focusing on the "use PS_COSMETIC for
                      smallest printable <br>
                      lines" patch, which I believe should be separate
                      from the "allow <br>
                      printing zero-width lines" patch.<br>
                      <br>
                      Tomorrow I'll post a new patch based on the
                      feedback I've received so far.<br>
                      <br>
                      -Rick-<br>
                      <br>
                      <br>
                      On 2018-10-19 00:56, Adrian Johnson wrote:<br>
                      > There were some patches to fix the culling on
                      narrow lines on vector<br>
                      > surfaces:<br>
                      ><br>
                      > <a
href="https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/cairo/cairo/commit/b1192beac7c5b56a8ff356d20af5ebfb65404109"
                        rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"
                        moz-do-not-send="true">https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/cairo/cairo/commit/b1192beac7c5b56a8ff356d20af5ebfb65404109</a><br>
                      ><br>
                      > <a
href="https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/cairo/cairo/commit/bec8c7508ebc0f69266f9aebe9903539391c519b"
                        rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"
                        moz-do-not-send="true">https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/cairo/cairo/commit/bec8c7508ebc0f69266f9aebe9903539391c519b</a><br>
                      ><br>
                      > Those patches should allow zero width lines.
                      I'm not sure what else<br>
                      > could be preventing zero width lines from
                      getting through to the win32<br>
                      > print surface.<br>
                      ><br>
                      > You code that sets the cosmetic flag is not
                      checking the line width in<br>
                      > device units. The StrokePath() is called in
                      user coordinates so that the<br>
                      > line width will be in user coordinates. The
                      reason emitting the path in<br>
                      > device space and stroking in user space is
                      demonstrated here<br>
                      > <a
                        href="https://cairographics.org/tutorial/#L2linewidth"
                        rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"
                        moz-do-not-send="true">https://cairographics.org/tutorial/#L2linewidth</a><br>
                      ><br>
                      > To check if the line width is < 1 device
                      unit you would need to do<br>
                      > something line in the second commit above to
                      find the line width in user<br>
                      > space.<br>
                      ><br>
                      ><br>
                      > On 19/10/18 07:32, Rick Yorgason wrote:<br>
                      >> Sure enough, Cairo seems to be culling
                      zero-width lines somewhere, so it<br>
                      >> doesn't matter whether or not I check for
                      zero here.<br>
                      >><br>
                      >> For now, I propose that I get rid of the
                      zero-check in my patch, so<br>
                      >> anything <= 1 device unit is drawn
                      with a PS_COSMETIC pen. This value<br>
                      >> gets rounded to an integer, so this
                      approach is consistent with the<br>
                      >> definition of a hairline being the
                      smallest thing a printer can print.<br>
                      >><br>
                      >> In the long run, it would be nice to
                      track down where Cairo is culling<br>
                      >> zero-width lines and allow them through,
                      as I believe postscript and pdf<br>
                      >> both treat zero-width lines as hairlines.<br>
                      >><br>
                      >> -Rick-<br>
                      >><br>
                      >><br>
                      >> On 2018-10-18 12:09, Bill Spitzak wrote:<br>
                      >>> I suspect there is code in Cairo that
                      assumes zero-width strokes are<br>
                      >>> invisible, so it may be difficult to
                      fix it for only this device.<br>
                      >>><br>
                      >>> The main reason for using zero rather
                      than any other number is that it<br>
                      >>> survives scaling, which is pretty
                      important for a magic value.<br>
                      >>><br>
                      >>> On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 11:12 AM Rick
                      Yorgason <<a href="mailto:rick@firefang.com"
                        target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">rick@firefang.com</a><br>
                      >>> <mailto:<a
                        href="mailto:rick@firefang.com" target="_blank"
                        moz-do-not-send="true">rick@firefang.com</a>>>
                      wrote:<br>
                      >>><br>
                      >>>      Including zero-width strokes
                      makes sense to me. After all, true<br>
                      >>>      hairlines are supposed to act as
                      though they're zero-width.<br>
                      >>><br>
                      >>>      The reason I implemented it this
                      way it's because I was worried<br>
                      >>>      about two use cases:<br>
                      >>><br>
                      >>>      1) Some applications might rely
                      on zero-width lines being<br>
                      >>>      invisible. (Imagine an artist
                      who selects all the lines he wants<br>
                      >>>      to hide and changes their line
                      width to zero.)<br>
                      >>><br>
                      >>>      2) Maybe some CNC machines rely
                      on zero-width lines? PS_COSMETIC<br>
                      >>>      lines are always 1 unit wide, so
                      there would be no way to send<br>
                      >>>      zero-width lines to the printer
                      any more. This seems unlikely to<br>
                      >>>      be a problem, but it's possible.<br>
                      >>><br>
                      >>>      (1) can be fixed by the calling
                      application, and (2) isn't likely<br>
                      >>>      a real problem, and if we
                      include zero-width strokes it would make<br>
                      >>>      it easier for developers to make
                      true zero-width hairlines (since<br>
                      >>>      they don't need to know the
                      target device's minimum unit size), so<br>
                      >>>      I'm down for it.<br>
                      >>><br>
                      >>>      -Rick-<br>
                      >>><br>
                      >>>      On October 18, 2018 9:10:07 AM
                      PDT, Carl Worth <<a
                        href="mailto:cworth@cworth.org" target="_blank"
                        moz-do-not-send="true">cworth@cworth.org</a><br>
                      >>>      <mailto:<a
                        href="mailto:cworth@cworth.org" target="_blank"
                        moz-do-not-send="true">cworth@cworth.org</a>>>
                      wrote:<br>
                      >>><br>
                      >>>          On Wed, Oct 17 2018, Rick
                      Yorgason wrote:<br>
                      >>><br>
                      >>>              With this patch, I can
                      use Inkscape to set my stroke width<br>
                      >>>              to 0.001" and it will
                      cut through the material as expected.<br>
                      >>><br>
                      >>><br>
                      >>>          If we're going to have a
                      magic value here, I think I'd be much happier<br>
                      >>>          to have 0 be the magic
                      value.<br>
                      >>><br>
                      >>>          (I know that your code isn't
                      actually making 0.001" be magic, but a<br>
                      >>>          whole range of values. I
                      think I would really prefer to have that range<br>
                      >>>          include rather then exclude
                      0.0.)<br>
                      >>><br>
                      >>>          Does anyone see any reason
                      why a stroke width of 0 shouldn't be treated<br>
                      >>>          this way?<br>
                      >>><br>
                      >>>          I think that would make a
                      much better way to be able to document<br>
                      >>>          this. ("Use a value of 0 to
                      get a PS_COSMETIC pen which is useful when<br>
                      >>>          targeting devices such as
                      laser cutters".)<br>
                      >>><br>
                      >>>          And speaking of
                      documentation, it seems this patch should also be<br>
                      >>>          touching up the
                      documentation, such as in cairo_set_line_width?<br>
                      >>><br>
                      >>>          I know the code is specific
                      to the Windows backend, but I think it's<br>
                      >>>          reasonable to put a
                      backend-specific note into the general
                      documentation<br>
                      >>>          in a case like this.<br>
                      >>><br>
                      >>>          -Carl<br>
                      >>><br>
                      >>><br>
                      >>>      --<br>
                      >>>      Sent from my Android device with
                      K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.<br>
                      >>>      --<br>
                      >>>      cairo mailing list<br>
                      >>>      <a
                        href="mailto:cairo@cairographics.org"
                        target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">cairo@cairographics.org</a>
                      <mailto:<a
                        href="mailto:cairo@cairographics.org"
                        target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">cairo@cairographics.org</a>><br>
                      >>>      <a
                        href="https://lists.cairographics.org/mailman/listinfo/cairo"
                        rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"
                        moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.cairographics.org/mailman/listinfo/cairo</a><br>
                      >>><br>
                      >><br>
                      >><br>
                      <br>
                      -- <br>
                      cairo mailing list<br>
                      <a href="mailto:cairo@cairographics.org"
                        target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">cairo@cairographics.org</a><br>
                      <a
                        href="https://lists.cairographics.org/mailman/listinfo/cairo"
                        rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"
                        moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.cairographics.org/mailman/listinfo/cairo</a></blockquote>
                  </div>
                </blockquote>
                <br>
                <br>
                <fieldset
                  class="m_-909196513678428700mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
                <br>
              </blockquote>
              <br>
            </div>
          </blockquote>
        </div>
      </blockquote>
      <br>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
  </body>
</html>