W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > March 2014

Re: [whatwg] [Canvas] Behavior on non-invertable CTM

From: Justin Novosad <junov@google.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 11:45:05 -0400
Message-ID: <CABpaAqSSWMP7zYYg-24ZPrmErJfVtEAsXR_=bMDhHssQ-NyVww@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
Cc: WHATWG List <whatwg@whatwg.org>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com> wrote:

> > Hmmm, I gave this a bit more thought...  To apply the construction
> > algorithm in transformed space, the ellipse parameters (radiusX, radiusY,
> > rotation) would have to be transformed. Transforming the parameters would
> > be intractable under a projective transform (e.g. perspective), but since
> > we are limitted to affine transforms, it can be done.  Now, in the case
> of
> > a non-invertible CTM, we would end up with radiusX or radiusY or both
> equal
> > to zero.  And what happens when you have that?  Your arcTo just turned
> into
> > lineTo(x1, y1). Tada!
> Why does radiusX or radiusY need to be zero? Because you define it that
> way for a non-invertible matrix? That makes sense for scale(0,0). What
> about infinity or NaN? If Ian didn’t update the spec then this is still
> undefined and therefore up to the UA to decide.
Oh yeah, I was totally forgetting about singularities caused by non-finite
values.  Could we just the same agree to resolve that case by treating
arcTo as lineTo(x1, y1) in the case of a non-invertible CTM?  Or do you
think there is a more logical thing to do?
Received on Monday, 17 March 2014 15:53:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 17:00:17 UTC