- From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 15:45:08 +0100
- To: "Grant, Melinda" <melinda.grant@hp.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, "www-svg@w3.org" <www-svg@w3.org>
Forwarding... ------- Forwarded message ------- From: "Erik Dahlström" <ed@opera.com> ... > Hi Simon, > > I know little about SVG, so maybe someone else will help out if I > misspeak. > >> The CSS property allows the same precision as >> 'background-position' for positioning, while SVG has less >> precision. What are the use cases for more precision? > > I think the greater precision for positioning was driven more by a > desire to align with existing CSS syntax than from identified use > cases. The greater flexibility may not afford significant advantage to > CSS authors. Svg might be "less flexible" for positioning if you use preserveAspectRatio, but I wouldn't call it "less precision". Anyway... >> The CSS spec allows the image to go outside of the layout box >> with 'overflow:visible; image-fit:cover'. What's the use case >> for this? > > This is more driven by the CSS box model than by use cases, I believe. > Images can extend beyond their height/width boxes, and overflow is the > mechanism to control that. The 'image-fit' specification just uses the > existing model. (I don't think SVG has a similar overflow model, does > it?) Svg supports 'overflow' on elements that establish viewports, which among other things includes foreignObject. The name 'image-fit' may not be so appropriate for that case. See http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG11/coords.html#EstablishingANewViewport. I would ask what the CSS WG thinks should happen when using 'image-fit' on <iframe>, <object> and <embed>, both in case it references a raster image, and when it doesn't (e.g an svg, or some html, or a plugin). >> Previously, the CSS spec had the same keywords as SVG. What's >> the reason for the change? > > The keywords were initially taken from SMIL 1.0, but it was felt that > the functionality was different enough that we should use different > names to prevent confusion. Also, the CSS group felt that the previous > keywords weren't as descriptive as they could be. The SVG WG seemed to be ok with a new property, and could adopt it for use in SVG too, but 'image-fit' wasn't seen as a general enough name. See http://www.w3.org/2009/03/16-svg-minutes.html#item06 /ed -- Simon Pieters Opera Software
Received on Friday, 20 March 2009 14:45:57 UTC