W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > September 2008

Re: [1.2T-LC] inverse and constrained transformations (ISSUE-2073)

From: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2008 22:08:53 -0400
Message-ID: <48DEE735.2020500@w3.org>
To: "Dr. Olaf Hoffmann" <Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>
CC: www-svg@w3.org

Hi, Dr. Olaf-

Thanks for your comment.  We will discuss it and get back to you soon.


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 Sunday, 28 September 2008 02:09:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 March 2017 09:47:15 UTC