- From: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
- Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2003 16:30:06 -0000
- To: <www-svg@w3.org>
"Antoine Quint" <ml@graougraou.com> > On 15 nov. 03, at 17:14, Jim Ley wrote: > > >> As far I understand, <video> is a "subclass" of <image>, and it should > >> just not render. > > > > I will certainly raise an issue against this, video, like images have > > a size > > and they should be consistent with the behaviour of including an SVG > > image > > defined the same. It should render. > > Huh? <image> does not render for 0 value width and/or height. Or did > you mean something else? Yes, this is a still open issue from 1.1 as regards image, I believe the same should be true for video (although perhaps less so, as it generally only has pixel info, rather than anything else.) > And please, don't raise your guns with issues > right away, constructuve feedback like you send is sufficient for us to > take notice and make for a more gentle exchange. It's just a draft. Yes, but I feel it's important that you're aware which are the parts where I will raise an issue, distinct from those where I'm just giving my input. Jim.
Received on Saturday, 15 November 2003 11:32:42 UTC