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

Some comments on  affiliates descriptors with images better than the examples given: <g><title>words</title><desc>more words</desc><image /></g>, and I surmise that that is the intention of the statement in 1.2 Tiny? But shouldn't this perhaps be a bit clearer in the spec itself when <image> is discussed? 

3. In some viewers <image height="200" width="300"> works fine to convey the authors intention to resize an image to fit a particular rectangle, but in most one has to say <image height="200" width="300" preserveAspectRatio="none">. A careful reading of the spec confirms that an author must override the browser's wish to override the author's intent here, but if the author wished to preserve aspect ratio by default, would she not just say <image height="200" > and let the browser's desire to preserve the aspect ratio kick in? If an author goes to the trouble of specifying both height and width, why would we assume that she must be mistaken?

I think I may have successfully subscribed to this mailing list, so you may hear from me a bit more on issues of specifications. Please forgive me if these issues have already been discussed but my ability to find discussion threads in W3C WG archives is a bit lacking. 


[1] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/gif.html
[2] http://drupal.org/node/8727 or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphics_Interchange_Format 
[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/SVGTiny12/access.html 
[4] http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG-access/ 
Received on Sunday, 19 September 2010 17:25:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 March 2017 09:47:22 UTC