incubator-ooo-issues mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From bugzi...@apache.org
Subject [Bug 121185] Rotated metafile looses rotation of gradient in presentation mode and in export
Date Wed, 10 Oct 2012 09:12:03 GMT
https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=121185

--- Comment #5 from Armin Le Grand <Armin.Le.Grand@me.com> ---
ALG: It's a deep problem.

- The old behaviour (gradient does not rotate with the object, but uses
changing bound rect of it, best seen interactively) cannot be changed, at least
not the usage of the rotated bound rect. (d) The metafile action for this has
no flag for this. When adding one, there is no way to save/load it with wmf/emf
definitions, thus not possible.

- After converting to metafile and using as graphic content of a graphic shape
it is expected to rotate with the object. Would anyone expect a bitmap *not* to
rotate with the object? Metafile is the same case.

(c) The concrete problem is that when converting a rotated graphic object with
metafile content it is tried to create a metafile action for this containing
the original gradient (for performance and filesize), but this *will* use the
expanded bound rect.

You understand (b) correct; it would enhance (c) to show rotated gradients, but
with wrong bound rect. It would be doable for 3.5.

Doing (a) means doing it for all remaining cases; it's the future. Doing it for
presentation will fix presentation only.

Adding 'rotate with object' is no option, see (d). Besides that, you know the
old VCL code and what it is doing. Adding something like 'apply to the
back-rotated shape, but execute with rotation' is hard and error prone.

One possible solution is to *not* use a gradient action when doing (c) for the
cases where a rotation and/or a shear is used. This could mean to (e) add a
bitmap with the rendered gradient or (f) all the created polygons which would
render the gradient. These alternatives have their caveats ((e) will show
pixels on gradients with view steps, (f) will extend file sizes).

Maybe these caveats are acceptable when thinking that these will be used in
cases where an adaption to primitives is missing. What do you think?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.

Mime
View raw message