W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > June 2008

Re: Canvas path transformations

From: Philip Taylor <pjt47@cam.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 00:28:08 +0100
Message-ID: <485AEB88.2040604@cam.ac.uk>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
CC: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>

Ian Hickson wrote on 2nd February 2008:
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2008, Philip Taylor wrote:
>> [stuff about infinity]
> I've changed the way infinity is handled. Let me know if the new text is 
> better.

It is.

>> [stuff about transforming arcs and stuff]
> I've changed the way this is worded. Is it better? I'm reluctant to 
> rewrite all the text to be pedantically correct here. :-)

It is. (I don't think it's perfectly precise, but it seems good enough - 
the tests can be pedantic, and if an implementor complains then the spec 
can be made more detailed.)

>> [stuff about transforming strokes]
> This changed a bit recently too, it now says "the stroke must itself also 
> be subjected to the current transformation matrix". Is that ok?

I think that doesn't help implementors at all since it's totally vague 
and meaningless. But everyone seems to implement stroking the same way 
already, and tests can detect when someone gets it wrong, and I expect 
it'd be a lot of work to try to specify stroke rendering in complete 
detail and then nobody would read that definition because it would be 
too complicated, so I guess it's okay to leave everything as it is 
unless someone complains they really need more detail.

While on the subject of transformations: The spec currently says 
"(Transformations affect the path when the path is created, not when it 
is painted, though the stroke style is still affected by the 
transformation during painting.)" - the word "style" links to the 
<style> element definition, which is wrong.

Philip Taylor
Received on Thursday, 19 June 2008 23:28:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:34 UTC