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

Re: [whatwg] Singular CTM and currentTransform

From: Justin Novosad <junov@google.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 15:35:47 -0400
Message-ID: <CABpaAqT8SP1j0RCDe4wjTZMYLCKguwJC7DGk1dnXok90w2E=tw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
Cc: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>, whatwg <whatwg@lists.whatwg.org>
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 3:15 PM, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> I agree. That issue has the same root problem as currentTransform.
> It would be nice to get closure.
>
> Justin, you hinted that you would be willing to follow the spec which
> would make you match Firefox and IE.
> Are still planning on doing that?
>

I'm in a holding pattern. I prepared a code change to that effect, but then
there was talk of changing the spec to skip path primitives when the CTM is
not invertible, which I think is a good idea. It would avoid a lot of
needless hoop jumping on the implementation side for supporting weird edge
cases that have little practical usefulness.

Right now, there is no browser interoperability when using non-invertible
CTMs, and the web has been in this inconsistent state for a long time.  The
fact that this issue has never escalated (AFAIK) is a strong hint that no
one out there really cares about this use case, so we should probably just
go for simplicity. Maklng path primitives and draw calls no-ops when the
CTM is non-invertible is simple to spec, implement, test, and understand
for developers.


> Note that Firefox is still non-compliant if there's a non-invertible
> matrix during filling/stroking/clipping
>
>
>> > PS: This is one reason I prefer a getter over an attribute because the
>> > getter does not return a mutable (live) SVGMatrix. But even than the
>> > problem above is not fully solved of course.
>>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 25 March 2014 19:36:20 UTC

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