- From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 11:07:02 -0700
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: Alan Gresley <alan@css-class.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, MURAKAMI Shinyu <murakami@antenna.co.jp>
On May 24, 2011, at 10:46 AM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 10:38 AM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote: >> On May 24, 2011, at 10:23 AM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 9:58 AM, Alan Gresley <alan@css-class.com> wrote: >>>> On 25/05/2011 2:42 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >>>>> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 7:24 AM, Brad Kemper<brad.kemper@gmail.com> >>>>>> This is also a question about background size. Suppose that with >>>>>> that same 400 x 400 raster image I have { background-image: >>>>>> image('400x400.png' 10dpi); background-size: 1in 1in; }? What are >>>>>> the final sizes of the rendered image pixels? 1/10" or 1/400"? >>>>>> >>>>>> Perhaps in both cases, you are just adjusting a sort of "late >>>>>> intrinsic" resolution that is then overridden by width and height >>>>>> declarations? If so, I think you need to say so. (Apologies, if you >>>>>> do somewhere already, and I just missed it.) >>>>> >>>>> I don't think it's clearly stated how this works, so I should fix >>>>> that. The intent is that it affects the intrinsic size. >>>>> >>>>> So, in your first example (400x400 pixel image at 72dpi, sized to >>>>> 1in by 1in), you first apply the resolution. This gives you a >>>>> native image size of 533px (or 5.55in), which is then scaled down to >>>>> 1in by 1in. Your second example is similar, though more extreme >>>>> given the tiny dpi. >>>> >>>> What happens with a SVG background-image that has no intrinsic size or no >>>> dimension? >>>> >>>> background-image: image('basic.svg' 50dpi) >>> >>> For vector images, the "dot" in dpi is pixels in the outermost >>> coordinate space. So, that declaration simply means that the SVG's >>> initial coordinate space is such that 1px in it is equal to 1/50th of >>> an inch. >>> >>> In other words, if the SVG image had something like "<svg width='100' >>> height='100'>" as the root element, then it would be scaled to be a >>> 2in by 2in square. Without that resolution declaration, the image >>> would be just over 1in square instead. >> >> Are SVG lengths alway unitless numbers? If not, I would expect an SVG measured in inches to be pixelated if given a low enough resolution (which might occasionally be a useful effect). Forgive my ignorance of SVG, please. > > No, they can be given as actual lengths, like "1in". I'm not > immediately certain how that would interact with resolution changes, > though. I suspect that's far enough down the unspecified road that > it's up to the UA right now. That should be specified then, in your images module. Either SVG should be resolution-independant (using e resolution), or it can be locked down via a <resolution> value. I don't feel strongly one way or another, but it should be consistent. Probably 'filter()' would be a better way of pixelating as a special effect.
Received on Tuesday, 24 May 2011 18:07:36 UTC