W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-cdf@w3.org > August 2005

Re: [CDF Framework 1.0] 2.4.1 Rightsizing Cases

From: Nicolas Mendoza <nicolasm@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 01:42:01 +0200
To: "Jon Ferraiolo" <jonf@adobe.com>, public-cdf@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.svmj4b2dj4chvx@localhost>

On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 20:17:32 +0200, Jon Ferraiolo <jonf@adobe.com> wrote:

>
> Jeff,
> This is a very good comment, but unfortunately about six years too late.  
> When the SVG 1.0 spec was developed in the period from 1998-2001, we  
> agreed on the processing rules for the 'width' and 'height' attributes  
> on the outermost <svg> element and how a child SVG object negotiates a  
> viewport size with its parent. These rules went into the SVG 1.0  
> Recommendation, which was approved in Sept. 2001. The key text from the  
> SVG 1.1 spec can be found at:  
> http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG11/coords.html#ViewportSpace
>
> Perhaps we chose a suboptimal approach back in 1998-2001, but at this  
> point there are many implementations that support these rules, so it is  
> too late to change them.
>

Doesn't the existing implementation work exactly like normal <img> tags,  
namely by a picture (or in this case embedded element) suggesting its  
size, but the parent document still able to enforce a size that the  
element eventually gets.

If a PNG image is larger than what the document allowed it to be it would  
simply be resized to fit. If an SVG should get scrollbars like an <iframe>  
would, why shouldn't JPEG, PNG or GIFs get one too?

Maybe a future spec might allow them to, but that should be thru an extra  
attribute like "keep-size", "no-resize", "scroll: on" a combination or  
similar.

-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Received on Wednesday, 17 August 2005 10:11:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:10:40 GMT