Explain why a compound logo path fills its intended opening

State the intended opening independently of the file

SVG 2’s 6 October 2026 Candidate Recommendation uses signed crossings for nonzero and parity for evenodd. Nonzero totals and odd counts respectively mean filled. With rectangles (0,0)–(10,10) and (3,3)–(7,7), center (5,5) has signed magnitude 2/even parity for matching directions, then 0/even after reversing the inner contour.

The computed fixture deliberately asks two different questions of the same region. Preserve the intended answer from the creative brief before inspecting the existing attribute. If the opening is required, a current filled result cannot redefine the design merely because it is what the application happens to show. Equally, do not change every compound shape to match one preferred setting.

Mark a witness inside the intended opening, one in the surrounding body and one outside the emblem. Avoid placing witnesses exactly on an edge. These points should have unambiguous design expectations, making the review about a specific painted region rather than a subjective impression of the whole logo. Record the untouched delivered path and the approved reference together.

Explain the witness without copying a source illustration

The accompanying Python assertions use original rectangle coordinates and count the crossings for the central witness. They establish the arithmetic classifications only; no browser or export application was executed. Their usefulness depends on the intended construction.

Prepare the outer contour and the inner contour as identifiable rows, with their traversal direction recorded. Keep the geometry unchanged while comparing the declared alternatives. If an export has reversed or rebuilt a contour, show that change explicitly. A successful preview obtained after several simultaneous repairs would not tell the next operator which relationship mattered.

Compare the other witnesses before accepting a candidate. Repairing the center should not erase the body or introduce an unexpected painted region elsewhere. For a real emblem with additional components, choose witnesses that represent those consequential regions too. Do not imply that a small rectangular demonstration proves every intricate self-intersection in the production artwork.

Choose a construction that survives its intended backgrounds

A white patch may look like an opening on a white artboard while covering a colored background in the final placement. Treat that as a different construction, not an equivalent repair. Ask whether the approved mark must reveal what is behind it, and retain that answer with the witness expectations. This is about the geometry’s intended paint coverage, not a recommendation about physical white ink.

Have the asset owner compare the received candidate with a controlled revision through the actual intended export route. Inspect a plain contrasting background and a representative campaign placement. The reviewer should be able to connect the observed opening to the construction record rather than merely approve a pleasing screenshot.

If the supplier cannot preserve the intended relationship reliably, request an explicitly approved alternative from the creative owner. Do not silently rebuild the symbol or convert a consequential opening into an opaque decoration. A workaround that changes brand recognition needs its own decision, even when it would be technically easier to distribute.

Retain the classified regions as the acceptance evidence

Save the witness locations, expected classifications, source revision and receiving observations. Record which construction was accepted and why. Keep the demonstration separate from the actual brand file so no one mistakes an invented training shape for authorized replacement artwork. Where a receiving route remains untested, name that limit.

Repeat the witness comparison after outline conversion, path simplification or replacement of a reused emblem. These operations may deserve separate production review, but this small artifact gives that review a precise question to answer. Acceptance should explain why the opening exists in the delivered construction, not merely that a background-colored area resembles one in a particular preview.

Make the reasoning concrete.

A fictional theater emblem loses its central opening in an export. A designer proposes drawing a white rectangle over the center so the current poster can be finished.

The theater preserves the intended opening as a construction requirement and rejects the unapproved patch as a substitute.

Take the questions into your next brief.

Use these prompts in your own notes. Nothing is submitted from this page.

1. Intent

   Which region must remain genuinely open?

2. Witnesses

   Which interior, body and exterior points represent the design?

3. Construction

   What contour relationship was supplied?

4. Classification

   What does each candidate predict at the witnesses?

5. Receiver

   Does the actual exported result preserve that construction?

Watch for the wrong conclusion.

• Treating white paint as an opening.
• Selecting a global rule without reviewing the shape.
• Changing contour geometry and interpretation simultaneously.

Sources & scope

Workflows and fictional business examples are original editorial analysis. Source mechanics and their repeated applications are charged. Python mathematical assertions were executed; no browser or 3D renderer test, real asset edit, configuration change or publication is claimed.

• Painting: Filling, Stroking and Marker Symbols — SVG 2 →Primary specification chapter · Supports: Supports interior classification.