From: Dr. Olaf Hoffmann <Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>

Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2008 17:53:20 +0200

To: www-svg@w3.org

Message-Id: <200809271753.20302.Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>

Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2008 17:53:20 +0200

To: www-svg@w3.org

Message-Id: <200809271753.20302.Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>

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. OlafReceived on Saturday, 27 September 2008 16:09:50 UTC

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1
: Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:29:38 UTC
*