- From: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2012 10:48:24 -0800
- To: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
- Cc: "Dr. Olaf Hoffmann" <Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>, "www-svg@w3.org" <www-svg@w3.org>
Received on Saturday, 3 March 2012 18:48:53 UTC
On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 7:21 AM, Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com> wrote: > > On Mar 3, 2012, at 5:45 AM, Dr. Olaf Hoffmann wrote: > > > Tanguy Ortolo: > > > >> Well, I guess natural units would not have a very high popularity then, > >> most SVG drawings must be using pixels… > With the merged transformation spec CSS3 Transforms[1], you can use units > like cm, in, px, pt and a lot more for translate(). But all units are > relative to user units which means the same like Olaf mentions in his post. > Can you use unitl if you express the transform with 'style: transform(...)' or also directly with the transform attribute? > > > > > Without providing a unit or an option to do so, you work in local units. > > Typically these are no pixels. Apart from other transformations, > > how much this is, depends mainly on the relation of width, height, > viewBox > > and preserveAspectRatio especially on the root svg element. > > The simplest approach is anyway just to use only local units within the > > svg element and define width and height of the svg with the intended > > units. > > Whatever you assume, what a 'natural unit' is, as already discussed > before, > > there are reasons, why you will typically get the absolute units like mm > and > > cm not correctly displayed, if you use them ... > > > > > > Olaf > > > > > Dirk > > [1] http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-transforms/ >
Received on Saturday, 3 March 2012 18:48:53 UTC