On Mar 25, 2014, at 8:46 PM, Rik Cabanier <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Justin Novosad <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 3:15 PM, Rik Cabanier <[email protected]> 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. > > Great to hear! > I volunteer to update the Firefox implementation if we can get consensus. > (see https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=931587) Speaking for WebKit, support for changing the spec from me as well. Doing it according to the spec would be difficult, if possible at all in WebKit. Greetings, Dirk > > 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. > > >
