- From: Justin Novosad <junov@google.com>
- Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2014 10:14:42 -0400
- To: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
- Cc: WHAT Working Group <whatwg@whatwg.org>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 6:10 PM, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, 25 Mar 2014, Justin Novosad wrote: >> > > >> > > I prepared a code change to that effect, but then there was talk of >> > > changing the spec to skip path primitives when the CTM is not >> > > invertible, which I think is a good idea. It would avoid a lot of >> > > needless hoop jumping on the implementation side for supporting weird >> > > edge cases that have little practical usefulness. >> > >> > I'm not sure I agree that they have little practical usefulness. Zeros >> > often occur at the edges of transitions, and if we changed the spec then >> > these transitions would require all the special-case code to go in >> author >> > code instead of implementor code. >> > >> >> Yes, I think that may be the strongest argument so far in this discussion. >> The examples you provided earlier illustrate it well. >> I would like to hear what Rik and Dirk think about this now. >> > > I looked at the webkit and chrome bug databases and I haven't found anyone > who complained about their current behavior. > Implementing this consistently will either add a bunch of special case > code to deal with non-singular matrices or double (triple?) conversion of > all segment points like firefox does. After that, fill, stroke and clip > will still not work when there's a non-invertible matrix. > > I do not think it's worth the effort... > If I did not feel bad about using laziness as an argument, I might agree. :-)
Received on Wednesday, 9 April 2014 14:16:36 UTC