- From: Dr. Olaf Hoffmann <Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2009 12:14:09 +0200
- To: www-svg@w3.org
Hello, I think, the wording of the definition of the filter attribute filterRes is a little bit confusing (both in SVG 1.1 and the 1.2 draft). http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-SVGFilter12-20070501/#FilterEffectsRegion http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG11/filters.html#FilterEffectsRegion It is noted: " filterRes (which has the form x-pixels [y-pixels]) indicates the width and height of the intermediate images in pixels. If not provided, then a reasonable default resolution appropriate for the target device will be used. (For displays, an appropriate display resolution, preferably the current display's pixel resolution, is the default. For printing, an appropriate common printer resolution, such as 400dpi, is the default.) " Looking on the behaviour of Opera and the adobe plugin, meanwhile I'm pretty sure, that the value are one or two numbers representing lengths and no resolution. Related to this area a resolution is typically measured in 'something per length' with 'something' indicating, how many distinguishable fractions one length unit can contain. Indeed therefore a resolution can be a number without a unit, but then it does not represent a width or height. However width and height are only indicated in the first sentence, the others speak about a resolution, what is not a length but something like the mentioned dots per inch. This does not fit together and especially a number presenting a resolution cannot be the default for numbers representing lengths. But lengths can be calculated, if a resolution is known and one characteristic size. As far as I understand this, the filter region has some width and height in device pixels (dots) and at the same time the filter region has some width and height in user/filter coordinate units. A viewer can now determine a resolution for example in device pixels per user/filter coordinate unit. And the default value for filterRes is the size of the filter region in device pixels. Is this correct? If yes, I think, the wording should be clarified slightly. If not, it should be clarified even more, to ensure that author get the meaning right and use it in the intended way. Best wishes Olaf
Received on Thursday, 9 July 2009 10:23:32 UTC