- From: Erik Dahlström <erik@xn--dahlstrm-t4a.net>
- Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 08:11:44 +0200
- To: Erik Dahlström <erik@xn--dahlstrm-t4a.net>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>
On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 01:28:21 +0200, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 12:27 PM, Erik Dahlström <erik@dahlström.net> > wrote: >> Hi, >> I was reviewing the 'transform-box' section in the css transforms spec, >> https://drafts.csswg.org/css-transforms/#transform-box. >> >> The initial value of 'transform-box' is 'border-box', which is fine. >> However, the spec continues to state that: >> "For SVG elements without an associated CSS layout box, the used value >> for >> border-box is view-box." >> >> It seems to me that a used value of 'fill-box' in this case would lead >> to >> more easily understood behavior than 'view-box'. So, I'd like to know >> what >> the rationale behind the current choice is. >> >> An example, http://jsfiddle.net/fs6cLt38/1/. > > Note that 'fill-box' isn't the correct analogue for border-box, > stroke-box is. > > ~TJ True, 'stroke-box' might be an even better choice. The current draft didn't have that keyword value listed however. /ed
Received on Tuesday, 29 September 2015 06:12:14 UTC