Re: [css3-transforms] scale 0 on non-scaling strokes

Rik Cabanier:

>on wednesday it was resolved that an element with a non-scaling stroke
>should disappear when a scale factor goes to 0.
>After thinking about this some more, I think that this doesn't make sense.
>The geometry of the stroke does not scale, only the path does.
>So, when scale goes to '0', the path would go to a line or a dot which then
>should be stroked.
>If the element is skewed to 90deg, I agree that everything should disappear.
This can be surprising as well, because here already the fill area is not
necessarily zero - isn't this conserved for skewing in general?

>I think the behavior that was agreed upon will cause rendering glitches. If
>you have an animation that goes from scale(1,1) to scale(-1, 1), you will
>see a flicker 50% into the animation.

Following the previous discussion on this list about these 
(and other) issues, I got the impression, that the effect is intended.
I think, the general idea about these specific 'no rendering' rules
is to frustrate authors to force them to avoid such situations and
applications and care about other things than non-scaling-stroke
of 1D or 0D objects, mirroring within animation, skewing,
non invertable matrices, compatibility with current SVG etc.
A friendly author is expected to find no new applications, the
editors did not see or did not like, therefore these attempts
to restrict the usefulness of such drafts on issues, the editors
do not like ;o)
Another interpretation is, that some implementations of the
current draft are of low quality and cannot solve such situations
in a meaningful way and these are the desperate attempts
to hide these quality or motivation problems ;o)
There are several indications for the problem of low motivation
to improve the current draft as well in previous discussions.
At some point it becomes a waste of time to read CSS drafts
and to provide comments on it - if such comments are ignored
anyway ;o)


Received on Saturday, 12 May 2012 11:53:11 UTC