W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > January 2014

Re: The (new, enhanced) viewbox property

From: Paul LeBeau <paul.lebeau@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 16:30:39 +1300
Message-ID: <CACfsppCT20WXw2d6zWGvYc+1Zczefe=8=8DkQ7GmEqZb2HXKcw@mail.gmail.com>
To: www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>
Tab wrote:
>  It's completely allowed by the specs to do so.

That's true, but it no-one does. Because:

a) The SVG spec basically defers to CSS, and CSS strongly encourages you to
use 96dpi.
b) It you don't default to 96, many SVG files break.  Including some
examples in the spec.

Perhaps it would be worthwhile to add a flag to the SVG2 spec.  Something
like:

<svg physicalUnits="css" />

"css" - the default, means current behaviour (ie. 96)
"device" - determined from the device DPI (if available, else 96).

Paul



On 8 January 2014 12:50, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 3:23 PM, Jelle Mulder <pjmulder@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> > I think the absolute size of a pixel is irrelevant for any use. Aspect
> ratio
> > like 4:3 have been thrown out of the window for quite a while with 16:10
>
> Wrong use of the term "ratio".  This has nothing to do with screen
> aspect ratios.
>
> > a wide variety of them being available. It's not the point really. What
> > would be useful is to be able to set a number of px unit, so you don't
> have
> > to work with insane amounts of decimals in your SVG documents as
> authored by
> > wysiwyg editors.
>
> Having the ability to define a custom unit that is convenient for your
> workflow does sound like an interesting and potentially useful
> proposal, but it's quite separate from what's being discussed here.
>
> ~TJ
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 8 January 2014 03:31:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 March 2017 09:47:35 UTC