- From: Erik Dahlström <ed@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 14:25:22 +0100
- To: "Mark E. Shoulson" <mark@kli.org>, www-svg@w3.org
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 16:22:59 +0100, Mark E. Shoulson <mark@kli.org> wrote: > 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? Are you proposing that 'transform' on <mask> should be a supplemental transform, similar to gradientTransform[1] and patternTransform[2], such that it doesn't apply to the x,y,width,height attributes that are on the <mask> element? Or, do you suggest to add it similar to <clipPath>, that is have 'transform' implied[3]? > (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 would tend to agree with that. There's a thread[4] on svg-developers@yahoogroups.com about this problem. > 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. Indeed. /Erik [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG11/pservers.html#LinearGradientTransformAttribute [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG11/pservers.html#PatternTransformAttribute [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG11/masking.html#ClipPathElement [4] http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/svg-developers/message/60105 -- Erik Dahlstrom, Core Technology Developer, Opera Software Co-Chair, W3C SVG Working Group Personal blog: http://my.opera.com/macdev_ed
Received on Tuesday, 11 March 2008 13:25:53 UTC