Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!EXPO.LCS.MIT.EDU!rws
From: rws@EXPO.LCS.MIT.EDU (Bob Scheifler)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: A developer's view of the X fill policy
Message-ID: <8901061338.AA07155@EXPIRE.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: 6 Jan 89 13:38:47 GMT
Sender: daemon@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 29


    I don't understand the question.  The border ought to be defined using
    the normal line description fields of the GC

Let me try again.  You've said you want the border to be a wide line.  The
question is how the exact set of pixels comprising that line is defined.
A wide line in the protocol is defined using the definition of what it means
to fill a shape defined by an infinitely thin outline.  You originally proposed
changes to the rules so that there is variable semantics for whether pixels
on the outline are "in" or "out".  The proposal was later modified to apply
to the "border" rather than the "outline".  But, there is still the question
as to whether the outline of the border is "in" or "out" of the border.
George Hart has suggested:

    It would seem that specifying FillIncludingPath and not drawing the
    path itself would suffice.

But I'm not sure I parse that correctly.  If I take FillIncludingPath to
mean that the outline of the border should be "in" the border, then that
means I would "draw the [outline] itself", but George says "not".

George also says

    Incidentally, (in case anyone thinks that Jim's is an isolated case),
    I face the same dilemma that Jim does trying to move existing software
    from our current object based system to X.

and indeed, my question after all this is worked out is "Who else cares
a whole lot about this, and why?".