- From: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2008 22:08:53 -0400
- 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. Regards- -Doug 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