- From: Nicolas Mendoza <nicolasm@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 01:42:01 +0200
- To: "Jon Ferraiolo" <jonf@adobe.com>, public-cdf@w3.org
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 20:17:32 +0200, Jon Ferraiolo <jonf@adobe.com> wrote: > > Jeff, > This is a very good comment, but unfortunately about six years too late. > When the SVG 1.0 spec was developed in the period from 1998-2001, we > agreed on the processing rules for the 'width' and 'height' attributes > on the outermost <svg> element and how a child SVG object negotiates a > viewport size with its parent. These rules went into the SVG 1.0 > Recommendation, which was approved in Sept. 2001. The key text from the > SVG 1.1 spec can be found at: > http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG11/coords.html#ViewportSpace > > Perhaps we chose a suboptimal approach back in 1998-2001, but at this > point there are many implementations that support these rules, so it is > too late to change them. > Doesn't the existing implementation work exactly like normal <img> tags, namely by a picture (or in this case embedded element) suggesting its size, but the parent document still able to enforce a size that the element eventually gets. If a PNG image is larger than what the document allowed it to be it would simply be resized to fit. If an SVG should get scrollbars like an <iframe> would, why shouldn't JPEG, PNG or GIFs get one too? Maybe a future spec might allow them to, but that should be thru an extra attribute like "keep-size", "no-resize", "scroll: on" a combination or similar. -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Received on Wednesday, 17 August 2005 10:11:25 UTC