- From: Erik Dahlstrom <ed@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 13:24:53 +0200
- To: www-svg@w3.org
On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 10:42:08 +0200, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au> wrote: > Alex Danilo: >> Something for the WG to argue. I'd say child <svg>'s should be >> transformable since >> that is far more likely to be useful to content authors. You could use >> an <image> and >> reference the child SVG that way and it would transform, so the >> restriction on <svg> >> should never be needed since you can rotate it too. >> >> So if you can apply current scale, translation and current rotation to >> the root SVG >> via the DOM there doesn't seem to be a good argument to limit the >> transform for >> child <svg> does it? > > Agreed. I sometimes find myself adding an extra <g> as a parent of an > <svg> element (which I want due to setting up a viewport so I can use > percentages) just so I can transform it. It seems unnecessary to me. Yes, having 'transform' apply at least on child <svg> elements would be quite useful. It would be similar to how 'x' and 'y' on the svg element are specialcased. /Erik -- Erik Dahlstrom, Core Technology Developer, Opera Software Co-Chair, W3C SVG Working Group Personal blog: http://my.opera.com/macdev_ed
Received on Tuesday, 12 October 2010 11:25:29 UTC