Re: [cgmo-webcgm] TransformAPS test

[Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>]

Okay, I've determined that the 2.1 spec isn't in error as I feared, so 
there isn't that issue to raise.

Ulrich, accordingly you should go ahead and 'rework' transformAPS, or 
refute Forrest's critique.

(I'll send a "Part 2", with some thoughts about 2.1 transforms, and how it 
might be easy to get the order wrong.)

-Lofton.