- From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
- Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 21:42:08 +1300
- To: Alex Danilo <alex@abbra.com>
- Cc: Nikolas Zimmermann <zimmermann@physik.rwth-aachen.de>, Shane Stephens <shans@google.com>, www-svg@w3.org
Alex Danilo: > Something for the WG to argue. I'd say child <svg>'s should be transformable since > that is far more likely to be useful to content authors. You could use an <image> and > reference the child SVG that way and it would transform, so the restriction on <svg> > should never be needed since you can rotate it too. > > So if you can apply current scale, translation and current rotation to the root SVG > via the DOM there doesn't seem to be a good argument to limit the transform for > child <svg> does it? Agreed. I sometimes find myself adding an extra <g> as a parent of an <svg> element (which I want due to setting up a viewport so I can use percentages) just so I can transform it. It seems unnecessary to me. -- Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.id.au/
Received on Tuesday, 12 October 2010 08:42:48 UTC