On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 6:10 PM, Rik Cabanier <caban...@gmail.com> wrote:
>  > On Tue, 25 Mar 2014, Justin Novosad wrote:
>> > >
>> > > 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.
>> >
>> > I'm not sure I agree that they have little practical usefulness. Zeros
>> > often occur at the edges of transitions, and if we changed the spec then
>> > these transitions would require all the special-case code to go in
>> author
>> > code instead of implementor code.
>> >
>> Yes, I think that may be the strongest argument so far in this discussion.
>> The examples you provided earlier illustrate it well.
>> I would like to hear what Rik and Dirk think about this now.
> I looked at the webkit and chrome bug databases and I haven't found anyone
> who complained about their current behavior.
> Implementing this consistently will either add a bunch of special case
> code to deal with non-singular matrices or double (triple?) conversion of
> all segment points like firefox does. After that, fill, stroke and clip
> will still not work when there's a non-invertible matrix.
> I do not think it's worth the effort...

If I did not feel bad about using laziness as an argument, I might agree.

Reply via email to