- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 13:05:57 +0200
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: public-cdf@w3.org
On Friday, July 21, 2006, 12:32:31 PM, Ian wrote: IH> On Wed, 19 Jul 2006, Chris Lilley wrote: >> >> Bert wrote: >> > >> > E.g., in an SVG style sheet, you can write >> > >> > font-size: 7 >> > >> > which is defined to be the same as >> > >> > font-size: 7px >> >> (Sort of. 7px is defined to be the same as 7 user units. if that gets >> scaled, the result could be very far from 7 screen pixels) IH> Not "sort of", Bert is exactly correct This is tangential to the actual comment but no, he has it the wrong way round. He says that 7 user units is defined to be the same as 7 px which (as you correctly point out below) is not the case. IH> -- in SVG, the two declarations IH> above are defined to be exactly equivalent to each other. Sort of. But you have it correct later on. IH> "px" in SVG has IH> no relation to screen pixels, the unit "px" is defined to be equivalent to IH> user units. Yes, exactly. Note the order. Note that this is not commutative. User units are not defined to be equivalent to px. Px are defined to be equivalent to user units. The difference is readily seen as soon as there is a viewBox or a transform involved, ie most of the time. However, all that aside, the comment on how different lexical forms in presentation attributes and in style sheets, and how to create mixed style sheets by using a) the lexical forms allowed by CSS, and b) @namespace still stands. -- Chris Lilley mailto:chris@w3.org Interaction Domain Leader Co-Chair, W3C SVG Working Group W3C Graphics Activity Lead Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
Received on Friday, 21 July 2006 11:06:10 UTC