Re: Why are <svg> elements not SVGTransformable?

The <svg> element has many, many applications as a symbol  where the
element can be uniquely sized(width/height) and placed(x,y) within
various documents:
Assume a symbol library containing svg elements that are  called by many apps.
This is in lieu of a symbol+use pairing.  There is definetly a need to
be able to provide transforms to the svg element when used in this

Francis Hemsher

On 2/21/10, Jeff Schiller <> wrote:
> No, it's not really a hardship :)
> It just seems that, if the <svg>'s x,y values are ignored when it's at
> the top-level, the @transform could also similarly be ignored.
> It just seemed like an arbitrary choice that I was curious about - the
> <svg> element is the only SVG element that doesn't have a transform
> attribute which means special processing in the JS.
> Furthermore, it's an extra interface in the DOM that would not have
> been necessary (SVGLocatable and SVGTransformable could have been
> collapsed).
> Jeff
> On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 6:38 AM, Robert Longson <> wrote:
>> Jeff,
>> Perhaps because the outer SVG often has to fit inside some kind of
>> rectangular space e.g. an embed or object or browser window. I don't think
>> adding a <g> is so much of a hardship really is it?
>> Best regards
>> Robert.

Received on Sunday, 21 February 2010 19:35:33 UTC