W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > September 2015

Re: [css-transforms] 'transform-box' defaults in svg

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>
Message-ID: <9B3E454F-9E8C-4806-9707-B471B9A7920C@adobe.com>

> 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.


> /ed

Received on Tuesday, 29 September 2015 06:53:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:57 UTC