W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > October 2010

[other topic] was [Re: inconsistency about preserveAspectRatio for <image> element] and was [Some comments on <image>]

From: ddailey <ddailey@zoominternet.net>
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 22:11:21 -0400
Message-ID: <A93273B3B2054D838C3F0E56814A445D@disxgdg31szkx7>
To: "Daniel Holbert" <dholbert@mozilla.com>
Cc: <www-svg@w3.org>
Yes, I agree that what you're saying is a different issue. I've tried to 
change the topic of the subject line, accordingly.

I do prefer the behavior of IE/ASV here to the way the spec handles it and 
cannot see why an author who says height="200" width="300" would, by 
default, want something different to happen.  I think other authors my 
experience my same sense of betrayal (well, okay, the word is a bit of an 
exaggeration!) on this point.

cheers
David
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Daniel Holbert" <dholbert@mozilla.com>
To: "ddailey" <ddailey@zoominternet.net>
Cc: <www-svg@w3.org>
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2010 9:44 PM
Subject: Re: inconsistency about preserveAspectRatio for <image> element


> On 10/11/2010 06:00 PM, ddailey wrote:
>> if the question of when to honor that
>> attribute is raised
>
> FWIW, I'm actually not at all questioning whether to honor that attribute.
> The spec is clear that it *should* be honored on <image> tags.
>
>> My sense is that if an author goes to the trouble of specifying both
>> height and width of an image, then they probably mean it regardless of
>> the default value of preserveAspectRatio.
>
> The <image> height/width attributes both default to 0, so authors *have*
> to specify them both.  The fact that an author "goes to the trouble of
> specifying both"  only signifies that he/she wants a nonzero-size image.
> :)  It doesn't necessarily signify any desire to distort the image.
>
> ~Daniel
>
> 
Received on Tuesday, 12 October 2010 02:11:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:46 GMT