W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-fx@w3.org > October to December 2010

Re: 2D Transforms Update - 14 Oct 2010

From: Dirk Schulze <vbs85@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 23:05:06 +0200
Cc: Anthony Grasso <Anthony.Grasso@cisra.canon.com.au>, "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>, Erik Dahlstrom <ed@opera.com>, "Dr. Olaf Hoffmann" <Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>
Message-Id: <9C4714DA-FA0F-41B4-B1FB-E7DC3352F97F@gmx.de>
To: robert@ocallahan.org

Am 25.10.2010 um 22:48 schrieb Robert O'Callahan:

> Maybe I'm missing something, but for "transform-origin" you don't define what the "bounding box" for an element in the CSS box model is. I guess from the CSS draft, it's "the element's CSS box" --- which is quite different in spirit to the SVG bounding box which "entirely encloses the element and its descendants". Maybe this should be noted; it's probably going to confuse authors. Or we could resolve the discrepancy by defining a new kind of SVG bounding box that only bounds the element and not its descendants, and defining transform-origin in terms of that.

What would the new bounding box look like for containers, if we don't take descendants into account?
Independent what kind of bounding box we would take, it's always confusing from time to time. For example if the content of an element gets clipped away by a SVG Clipper or Masker, we still get the bounding box of the original element without the clipper. Another example is SVG Filter. SVG Filter can define a filter region that is completely independent of the elements bounding box. It's content can even be on a totally different position.

Dirk
Received on Monday, 25 October 2010 21:05:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 25 October 2010 21:05:43 GMT