- From: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
- Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 06:52:48 +0000
- To: Erik Dahlström <erik@xn--dahlstrm-t4a.net>
- CC: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>
> On Sep 28, 2015, at 11:11 PM, Erik Dahlström <erik@xn--dahlstrm-t4a.net> wrote: > > 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. No. At the time we decided to just go with a limited set initially. I still believe we should progressively enhance if requested by more users. Greetings, Dirk > /ed >
Received on Tuesday, 29 September 2015 06:53:22 UTC