- From: Erik Dahlström <ed@opera.com>
- Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 14:42:37 +0200
- To: "Dr. Olaf Hoffmann" <Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>, www-svg@w3.org
On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 15:55:26 +0200, Dr. Olaf Hoffmann <Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de> wrote: > Hello www-svg, > > trying to use SVG1.1 pattern I found an interesting question > for the situation with overflow="visible". I think, this is not > really specified in the current specification, however the > problem can be solved as discussed below. Right, the behaviour in such a case isn't specified currently. > And if this is clarified, maybe there is a chance, that some > viewers support this interesting feature correctly and with > a proper quality, because it turned out in my tests, that > even in simple situations the results from viewers are > typically disappointing or not usable due to a low quality > of presentation. > In many or most viewers pattern are ignored, wrong or of low > quality or overflow="visible" is ignored. Low quality looks often > like enlarged raster images with inaccurate positioning > (see for example the adobe plugin or Opera; with the adobe > plugin there are often ugly residual frames from clipping too). > > For example Squiggle/Batik uses a method that one copy overlaps > another - topmost is bottom right, however, this is not specified and > often not very useful and maybe not intended. What are the use-cases for wanting to do overflow="visible" on a pattern tile? Are there any of those use-cases that cannot be solved by editing the pattern tile so that it fits inside the defined viewport? Cheers /Erik -- Erik Dahlstrom, Core Technology Developer, Opera Software Co-Chair, W3C SVG Working Group Personal blog: http://my.opera.com/macdev_ed
Received on Thursday, 23 April 2009 12:42:14 UTC