Hi Dr. Hoffmann, Excellent find in the specification! The SVG Working Group discussed this issue and we concluded that we should add wording that warns authors of the problem. As a result I was given ACTION-2284 [1] to add the wording to the specification. The new wording can be found in "The TransformRef value" [2] section of the specification. Please advise the SVG Working Group if you have any further comments or feedback regarding this issue. Kind Regards, [1] http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/actions/2284 [2] http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.2T/publish/coords.html#transform-ref Doug Schepers wrote: > Hi, Dr. Olaf- > > Thanks for your comment. We will discuss it and get back to you soon. > > Regards- > -Doug > > Dr. Olaf Hoffmann wrote (on 9/27/08 11:53 AM): >> Hello SVG WG, >> >> the section 7.7 about constrained transformations mentions >> several times the inverse of the CTM. Obviously this does >> not always exist (if the determinant is zero). >> Is it really intended, that this inverse matrix is used by >> implementations to get the desired effect or is it expected, >> that the effect is gained with other methods (what should be >> always possible even without using the not always existing >> inverse matrix, because the document contains much more >> information about the transformations than only the CTM)? >> >> But if it is really expected, that the inverse matrix >> is used, what is the expected behaviour, if it does not exist, >> for example for a short time within an animation or due to >> some tricky things using the vector-effect non-scaling-stroke. >> To mention this would be important especially for authors, >> because then they have to compute and avoid such situations. >> If another method is used, they do not really have to care. >> >> >> Olaf >> >> >> > >Received on Friday, 10 October 2008 07:19:58 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:55:07 GMT