- From: Robert Longson <longsonr@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 15:15:53 +0100
- To: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
- Cc: "www-svg@w3.org" <www-svg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAOu7Uv4jz5Noo9QZEY4HAQJGX3Ab57rX=wvsh-Fesip1MFVPnQ@mail.gmail.com>
> > In CSS 2.1 it says > > > > 'auto' The element does not clip. > SVG is precisely on how to use 'auto'. I don't think that "Firefox > implements CSS 2.1" means that SVG can't override the definition. That is > why I ask if we can remove this clarification for SVG elements. > What I really meant was that we parse rect arguments per CSS 2.1 rather than per CSS 2.0 which is not compliant with SVG 1.1 but, I hope will be compliant with SVG 2 > > > > > If you want clipping you need an overflow value other than visible (This > value indicates that content is not clipped per CSS 2.1) and you want the > svg width/height to be larger than the clip region to see clipping occur. > 'overflow' with 'visible' says: > > "This value indicates that content is not clipped, i.e., it may be > rendered outside the block box." > > It could be interpret that this is a general statement. I would just > interpret that it is not clipped by the 'overflow' property. After all > Firefox allows clipping with 'clip-path', so this seems not to be the > reason: > CSS 2.0 was more explicit in this regard. http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-CSS2-19980512/visufx.html#clipping I don't know whether the sentence was removed because it was tautologous or wrong though. Best regards Robert.
Received on Thursday, 11 October 2012 14:16:26 UTC