- From: Mark E. Shoulson <mark@kli.org>
- Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 11:22:59 -0400
- To: www-svg@w3.org
Hi folks. I'm new here, but I've been playing around with an SVG project for a while and I have a pair of questions-slash-feature requests... (1) Currently, my SVG validates, except for the fact that I have "transform" attributes on "mask" elements. I am told, "well, no problem, you can just put the transform on a group inside the mask," which is probably true, but if so, and thus if transforming everything in a mask is no problem, why isn't it allowed on the mask element itself in the first place? (2) I can use <image> elements to include a raster image from anywhere in the web. And I can set its "width" and "height" attributes (and its "x" and "y"), and then no matter *what* the original size of the image, it is always exactly the right size and in exactly the right place with respect to the current rendering of my SVG. That is, if the width and height are 80 and the x and y are -40, the image will *always* be centered at (0,0) in my SVG's coordinate system, and will *always* take up an 80x80 rectangle in my current coordinates. And yet I can't do that if the image I am including is another SVG. Because SVGs drag their own coordinate systems into the mix. So in short, raster images are more easily *scaled* and dealt with in a *scale-independent* fashion than the supposedly scalable and scale-independent SVGs?? That somehow seems wrong. I'm sure that there are Good and Proper reasons for the behavior of <image>-included SVGs, but in the interests of the scalability of what are supposed to be scalable images, It Would Be Nice If there were a way to include SVG images in a similar fashion to the scale-independence available to raster images. Thanks for your attention, ~mark
Received on Monday, 10 March 2008 17:42:20 UTC