- From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
- Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 17:51:49 +1000
- To: SVG Working Group WG <public-svg-wg@w3.org>
Erik Dahlström: > This may not affect tiny, but in 1.1 full: > What if a referenced svg image extends outside of its viewbox? Would > you expect the boundingbox to be tightly fitting the referenced image > (including the overflowing parts), or to return the viewbox rect that > was positioned inside the viewport defined by the <image> element? I suppose it would include the overflowing parts. The description of preserveAspectRatio="none" says: Scale the graphic content of the given element non-uniformly if necessary such that the element's bounding box exactly matches the viewport rectangle. but I think that should be saying that the element’s viewBox (or the implied one if it’s referencing a raster) is what should be scaled to the viewport rectangle. > Or if there was no viewbox, but the image had width/height defined and > there was some overflow. It would be the same as the above case (i.e., if with a viewBox="" there is overflowing content that contributes to the bounding box, then it should count in this case, too). > And would you expect the 'overflow' property to affect the boundingbox > in such cases? Does it normally? I think it doesn’t, but I’m not sure. All getBBox() in 1.1 says is: Returns the tight bounding box in current user space (i.e., after application of the transform attribute, if any) on the geometry of all contained graphics elements, exclusive of stroke-width and filter effects). > Since the change you propose can also affect things like clipping, > filters and masks (that can depend on the boundingbox of the image) > I'm wondering if you have seen any problems with this in Batik. That’s a good point. I haven’t noticed anything, but I haven’t been looking in particular. -- Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.id.au/
Received on Tuesday, 22 July 2008 07:52:45 UTC