- From: Ondrej Bojar <bojar@ufal.mff.cuni.cz>
- Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 11:26:09 +0200
- To: Helder Magalhães <helder.magalhaes@gmail.com>
- CC: www-svg@w3.org
Dear Helder Magalhães, Thanks for your response and all the details. The main and only question I have is: is the definition of font-size expressed in percentage in SVG 1.0 Specification ambiguous? If so, I would like to file it as a bug report so that future versions of SVG specification define the meaning for font-size in percentage well. (SVG Tiny is "fixed" already, as it does not allow font-size in percentage at all.) I'm sorry for not being able to express myself clearly right away... :-/ Thanks, Ondrej. Helder Magalhães wrote: >> I'm confused by the specification of font-size expressed in percentages, and >> various viewers indeed render my documents differently. > > Agreed. I've bumped into this issue in the past and mostly abandoned > percentage units due to these incoherent rendering behavior across > implementations. > > > >> The latest working draft for SVG Tiny seems to have noticed that [the removal of the percentage support] > > Not being very familiar with the reasons which are actually behind the > removal, I'd risk saying that it was mostly due to this particular > specification being designed for simpler devices - some of which don't > yet hold a reasonably complete CSS 2.1 parser (potentially required to > fulfill the way percentage units work). It might also be due to the > previous conflict between SVG and CSS you've stated in you message, > although I didn't find a particular working group action (or set of > actions) which lead to changing this particular part of the > specification. (Anyone wants to contribute with an URI or > contextualize a bit?) > > > >> Best regards, >> Ondrej. > > By reaching the end of the message I still didn't find a main purpose. > Could you clear you intention a bit? That is, did you intend to know > how are percentage units being addressed in future versions of the > specification? Did you intend to make a last call comment ("[1.2T-LC]" > expected in subject)? Towards which direction? Sorry if my reading of > the original was somehow naive but I did read it a few times - in > different dates too, to make sure I wasn't just too focused/tired > during the reading! ;-D > > > > Regards, > > Helder Magalhães > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-SVGMobile12-20080915/single-page.html#coords-Units -- Ondrej Bojar (mailto:obo@cuni.cz / bojar@ufal.mff.cuni.cz) http://www.cuni.cz/~obo
Received on Monday, 29 September 2008 09:26:48 UTC