Re: [whatwg] Responsive image maps

SVG can be resized. Everything inside it cannot, as far as it is not
defined by relative units. And percentage is not limited to ingegers, of
course, but it requires a value conversion. And I'm not sure it works with
polygons.


2015-03-20 21:15 GMT+01:00 Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>:

> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 1:00 PM, Andrea Rendine
> <master.skywalker.88@gmail.com> wrote:
> > About SVG, I made a couple of tests and they are far from being
> > comprehensive, but this is the fact. SVG image "maps" need to define 2
> > elements for each "area", i.e. the element itself and its associated
> > hyperlink.
>
> That's really not much:
>
> <svg width=... height=...>
>   <image src=foo ... />
>   <a href=target1><polygon points="..." /></a>
>   <a href=target2><rect ... /></a>
>   ...
> </svg>
>
> The markup complexity seems to be about the same as using
> <img>/<map>/<area>, especially if you accompany it with prose like the
> example in <
> https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/embedded-content.html#the-map-element
> >
> shows.
>
> > And while SVG graphics offers a wider range of instruments, such
> > a complexity is not always of much use. As such it could be useless to
> > vectorially define parts of the image when the purpose is just to apply a
> > series of shaped links on a preexisting "layer-0" image, as it could
> happen
> > with geographical maps, non-vectorial logos/charts, pre-elaborated
> graphics.
> > What is important, instead, is that inline SVG images cannot be resized
> with
> > CSS. And as such they aren't responsive, exactly as image maps.
>
> <svg> elements can be resized by the CSS 'width' and 'height'
> properties just fine.
>
> > The only
> > case where CSS resize applies to SVG graphics is when they're used as
> source
> > for <img> tag (apart from IE). And in that case hyperlinks are disabled.
> > What we are left with is relative measurement, expressed in percentage
> for
> > example, but IMHO this is not optimal. On one hand, measuring on base 100
> > decreases precision,
>
> Percentages are not "base 100".  They're full decimal numbers.  You're
> not limited to integer percentages.
>
> ~TJ
>

Received on Friday, 20 March 2015 20:31:01 UTC