W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > October 2004

Re: Gradients/SVG image

From: Jon Ferraiolo <jon.ferraiolo@adobe.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 09:52:48 -0700
To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>, Gillette Christophe-W20796 <christophe.gillette@motorola.com>
Cc: www-svg@w3.org
Message-id: <6.1.1.1.2.20041014095119.04984078@mailsj-v1.corp.adobe.com>

Chris,
Just to make sure everyone is communicating well, my assumption is that SVG 
Tiny gradients can only use floating point numbers (0.0 ... 1.0) and cannot 
use percentages because percentages are only allowed on the outermost <svg> 
for the width/height attributes. Correct?

Jon

At 01:17 AM 10/14/2004, Chris Lilley wrote:

>On Wednesday, October 13, 2004, 10:55:31 PM, Christophe Gillette wrote:
>
>
>GCW> Hi All,
>
>GCW> I have 2 questions about the SVG mobile specification:
>
>GCW> 1) When looking at the gradient subset that is defined for SVG Mobile
>GCW> 1.2, I was wondering what the WG decided regarding the default values
>GCW> that are expressed in percentages (for x1, x2, etc.)
>GCW> Both linear and radial gradients use default values as percentages,  but
>GCW> SVG Tiny is not supposed to support any units except on the width and
>GCW> height of the top svg. It seems that it would be appropriate to define
>GCW> in the SVGT specification what the new default values should be.
>
>Percentages in the 0...100% range and floats in the 0.0...1.0 range
>are two lexical forms for the same values. So the default values are the
>same as before. Since they are defaults, you don't meet them in content
>anyway.
>
>GCW> 2) The other question related to units:
>GCW> There is a restriction in Tiny that units are allowed only on root
>GCW> <svg>, does it also mean that they are allowed on the top <svg> of an
>GCW> svg image referenced by <image>?
>
>Yes.
>
>
>--
>  Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
>  Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
>  Member, W3C Technical Architecture Group
Received on Thursday, 14 October 2004 16:54:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 23:39:55 UTC