W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2002

Re: relative image size and svg

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 10:55:41 +0200
Message-ID: <1949698406.20020829105541@w3.org>
To: www-style@w3.org, "jonathan chetwynd" <j.chetwynd@btinternet.com>

On Tuesday, August 20, 2002, 12:00:12 PM, jonathan wrote:

jc> relative image size          (eg in CSS: img {width:10%;})       

jc> works with gif jpg png   but not svg

jc> Is there a workaround*?

Please clarify - is this a specification question (appropriate for
www-style) or an implementation issue (perhaps more appropriate for
svg-developers etc)?

When you say it does not work, what leads you to say that?

http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG/coords.html#ViewportSpace

Clearly states that "The SVG user agent negotiates with its parent
user agent to determine the viewport into which the SVG user agent can
render the document." Clearly, if the parent user agent tells it that
the available space is a particular width (for example, 10% of the
containing block width, or whatever other computation as this is
opaque to the SVG processor) then the initial viewport will be that
size, and the content scaled, clipped and positioned appropriately in
that area based on the width, height,   preserveAspectRatio and
viewBox attributes.

jc> thanks

jc> jonathan chetwynd


jc> *Or is there another graphic file format that supports:

jc> transparency                  (alpha channel, or gif-like)              gif png svg
jc> relative image size          (eg in CSS: img {width:10%;})        gif jpg png   but not svg
jc> some form of hotspot      (imagemaps, alpha or...)                none known that support relative image size, imagemaps otherwise

jc> SVG would appear not to support relative image size, as imagemaps
jc> aren't suited to this type of transform, ie they assume a fixed
jc> image size.

This is completely incorrect. If you were to say

"GIG, JPEG and PNG etc would appear not to support relative image
size, as imagemaps aren't suited to this type of transform, ie they
assume a fixed image size; but SVG fixes that and allows resizable
images (raster or vector) with imagemap functionality."

then I would agree. You seem to express this as its opposite, though,
and I have a hard time understanding how you would draw that
conclusion. Since SVG clearly has such functionality, the 'none known'
in your table is curious.



-- 
 Chris                            mailto:chris@w3.org
Received on Thursday, 29 August 2002 04:56:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:15 GMT