I wonder why the firefox CSS rendering engine prefers to smooth out. Looks like a dramatically different implementation, but maybe that's just because it's an edge case of rendering
Stroke expansion is a complex topic, with more than one reasonable result (subjective preferences), and a whole lot of corner cases and incorrect answers.
Firefox has chosen to expand based on distance at all points, which is one of the reasonable answers and probably the most general one; a cusp then expands to a curve.
The others have chosen to retain cusps, which can be a reasonable answer and I believe is a lot cheaper to compute; but degenerate cases abound as you expand past the feature size (distances between nodes), so that by the fourth red ring it’s obviously incorrect.
Box shadows are another case where expansion occurs: the fourth length parameter, spread distance. If the corner is a cusp, the shadow corner will be a cusp. If it’s rounded, the shadow corner will be rounded. See https://drafts.csswg.org/css-backgrounds/#shadow-shape for some helpful diagrams. A sneaky trick: .1px border-radius means the box still looks square, but the expanded shadow will curve. Sometimes useful. But back on the original content of the article—if you use a font with microscopic curves instead of cusp nodes, Chromium/Safari will look more like Firefox.
While I don't entirely love the rounding effect of firefox, I feel Chrome interpretation is just wrong in creating spurious spikes. Intuitively for the asterisk shape I'd expect the outline to go towards a plain hexagon, something that neither browser accomplishes.
I would assume they are just drawing the outline, not performing any distance calculations, and the differences are just a result of different linejoin choices. [1]
I'd imagine that at some point during the text rendering process, they have to generate an SDF of the text they want to render (it's what I did when I wanted to manually render text anyway). If they do, then they can generate the extra text-width lines basically for free, just fill everything with distance less than the property.
I may be entirely wrong though, I don't know in detail how browsers render stuff
The Firefox one looks like exactly what you’d expect from stepping the result of a SDF for that character. The rounded corners of the first layer would all be equidistant from the nearest corner of the original character.
I think Firefox applies more aggressive subpixel rendering and path smoothing before stroking. It resamples the glyph outline path at a higher precision level before handing it to the stroke algorithm.
Ran into this discrepancy myself. On top that, what seemed also odd to me were the "dots" (tittle, period, semicolon) where oversized becomes hollow in the middle, like it cancels out itself. No other shape I've tried did that. And browsers surprisingly agreed on this.
I’ve never seen people on the likes of blackhatworld selling hacker news accounts or services. The glass half full take on this is that hn is surprisingly robust in its ability to deal with vote manipulation.
> “It has to be worth it for the pleasure it’s brought me to see them,” Levine said. “Doctor Who runs all night in my bedroom, complete, nothing missing.”
Well heck - many don't even like the originals at all :p. On the contrary I found these much more enjoyable than the audio and stills! Of course I'd prefer more of the original copies be found... but for now the AI ones fill the gaps in my collection instead of the audio reconstructions.
They animated a lot of the missing pieces of the missing episode Shada with excellent results. If AI could do something of similar quality that would be wonderful.
Please don't capture my cursor on your homepage, and if you have to, please don't apply smoothing to is so that it doesn't go where I want it to! I appreciate that it's pretty, but making your site annoying to use can only increase churn
That link isn't showing most of the options. I believe there were at least 10 above him. Just individually look at the lines for Zuppi, Pizzaballa, Sarah, etc.
Just had a look - looks like pretty regular/reasonable cloudflare default stuff as far as I can tell. The headers relating to error reporting are the only thing that stand out a little, though it doesn't look unreasonable.
If you are seeing 301s logged on your end that is your site redirecting to another one.
There isn’t a way to see what a referring site did to do the redirect (301 or 302 or even a js redirect) in your logs. All you’ll see is (potentially) the Referer http header.
reply