W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > February 2011

RE: Clarification on percentage values for width/height

From: Patrick Dengler <patd@microsoft.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 16:40:09 +0000
To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>, www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <4A2DB3AE4504E944AF122BBFBA7FBA1F58287EC3@TK5EX14MBXC118.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Tab,

This is one of our discussion items this week.

If you think your scenario is not covered let me know : http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/wiki/F2F/Auckland_2011/Intrinsic_sizing_tests


Patrick

-----Original Message-----
From: www-svg-request@w3.org [mailto:www-svg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Tab Atkins Jr.
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2011 3:06 PM
To: www-svg
Subject: Clarification on percentage values for width/height

Heya SVG!

The current notes for SVG 1.1SE include some text that was in SVG 1.2 and was requested to be backported, concerning the meaning of percentage values in width/height on the root <svg> element:
<http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.1F2/master/coords.html#IntrinsicSizing>

While this text does make it reasonably clear that an SVG image with percentage values for width/height doesn't have intrinsic dimensions, it doesn't sufficiently define what effect the percentage values *do* have; it merely says that " they indicate the portion of the viewport that is actually covered by image data.".

Based on discussion with Doug, it appears that the intended effect is that percentage values don't give the initial viewport/image intrinsic dimensions, but they do specify the size of the <svg> element *within* that viewport in the obvious way.

Could this text be updated (and integrated into a proper SVG draft) to specify this behavior more precisely?  Right now, percentage values on the root's width/height regularly confuse authors and implementors alike.

~TJ


Received on Sunday, 27 February 2011 16:40:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:47 GMT