- From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 11:13:59 -0700
- To: public-cdf@w3.org
- Message-ID: <20060505181359.GA13956@ridley.dbaron.org>
On Friday 2006-05-05 12:44 -0500, Jeff Schiller wrote:
> index.html:
> <html>
> <body>
> <div style="background-image:url(background.svg); position:absolute;
> width:400px;">
> <p>This in foreground</p>
> </div>
> </body>
> </html>
>
> background.svg:
> <svg width="100%" style="width:600px;">
> ...
> </svg>
>
> In this scenario, the width attribute on the 'svg' element is ignored
> since it's overridden by CSS positioning properties. The only
> question is whether we need to be explicit: In this scenario, I would
> think that SVG image is scaled to 600 pixels wide. The CSS overflow
> property on the 400-pixel-wide HTML 'containing block' determines if
> the "extra" 200 pixels of the image are displayed or hidden.
Backgrounds don't create overflow; they're tiled over the content area.
So in this case, since the background isn't scalable, it would just have
200px of its width (and probably some of its height) cut off.
These also are really CSS issues (or in this case non-issues), not WICD.
-David
--
L. David Baron <URL: http://dbaron.org/ >
Technical Lead, Layout & CSS, Mozilla Corporation
Received on Friday, 5 May 2006 18:14:10 UTC