Closed Bug 272630 Opened 16 years ago Closed 15 years ago

On 'svg' elements getScreenCTM behaves differently to other implementations

Categories

(Core :: SVG, defect)

defect
Not set
normal

Tracking

()

RESOLVED FIXED

People

(Reporter: jwatt, Assigned: jwatt)

Details

(Keywords: fixed1.8, Whiteboard: SVGWG)

Attachments

(6 files, 2 obsolete files)

Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Attached patch patch (obsolete) — Splinter Review
Okay, this is how I think we should behave, which happens to be the way the
ASV6 alpha behaves (bar a bug I found in it). Certainly we should be accounting
for the transform due to the x and y attributes. I also think we should be
appending the viewBox to viewport transform. There is a note in the source
saying that if we do that for nsSVGSVGElement we need to modify
nsSVGGraphicsElement::GetCTM, but I don't see why. The only time
nsSVGGraphicElement::GetCTM effects nsSVGSVGElement::GetCTM or visa versa is in
nsSVGSVGElement::GetCTM.
Attachment #170818 - Flags: review?(tor)
Comment on attachment 170818 [details] [diff] [review]
patch

cancelling review request since we can't just use x and y (they are ignored on
outer <svg> elements)
Attachment #170818 - Flags: review?(tor)
I've followed up this issue in the thread beginning at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2005Jan/thread.html#15
Whiteboard: SVGWG
CC'ing Chris and Dean. I haven't recieved any confirmation from the SVG WG that
this is an issue, or alternatively an explaination of why it isn't an issue. If
it is agreed that there is ambiguity here, can we have some clarification on
what the correct behaviour is please?
Blocks: 293224
No longer blocks: 293224
Summary: Make getCTM() behave correctly → On 'svg' elements getScreenCTM behaves differently to other implementations
Attachment #170818 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attached patch unfinished snapshot (obsolete) — Splinter Review
The changes to GetScreenCTM are "finished" and pass all the tests I just
attached. GetCTM and GetTransformToElement still need work.
This is as far as I'm going with this tonight. I'm fairly confident this is
correct, but I'll do some more testing tomorrow.
Attachment #197726 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #197790 - Flags: superreview?(tor)
Attachment #197790 - Flags: review?(tor)
Attachment #197790 - Flags: superreview?(tor)
Attachment #197790 - Flags: superreview+
Attachment #197790 - Flags: review?(tor)
Attachment #197790 - Flags: review+
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 15 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Comment on attachment 197790 [details] [diff] [review]
probably finished patch

Requesting approval. This bug fixes a high visibility conformance issue. The
modified methods are not run by our internal code, they are only used by
content. The risk from this change should be very low.
Attachment #197790 - Flags: approval1.8b5?
Comment on attachment 197790 [details] [diff] [review]
probably finished patch

last day for non-critical changes.
Attachment #197790 - Flags: approval1.8b5? → approval1.8b5+
Keywords: fixed1.8
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.