From: Jasper van de Gronde <th.v.d.gronde@hccnet.nl>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 19:16:54 +0200
Message-ID: <503E4E86.9010903@hccnet.nl>

```On 29-08-12 15:53, Erik Dahlstrom wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 14:20:28 +0200, Dr. Olaf Hoffmann
> <Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de> wrote:
> ...
>> What could be the intended effect for a negative 'fr'?
>
> Not sure, I don't think we allow circles to have a negative radius
> anywhere else in svg.
>
>> Define, that the absolute value has to be used, if there is no intended
>> effect known.
>> This is better as to disallow, because if the viewer fixes this, the
>> authors
>> cannot fail by accident anymore ;o)
>
> I agree.

If you take the absolute value before interpolating, then you get the
weird situation that a cone (for example) first gets "thinner" and then
thicker again as you change the radius of one end from positive to negative.

It would make more sense to have a logical progression, where at fr=0
you get a cone that ends/starts in a point, and for fr<0 you essentially
get a "double cone". This is also the typical picture you have when
defining a circle as one of the conic sections:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conic_section
It also makes perfect sense if you represent a circle by x^2+y^2=r^2, or
using a parametric representation. I uploaded some images of what this
would look like: