Re: SVG 2 high value use cases based on StackOverflow questions

Hi Paul,
thank you for bringing this up, this is good feedback.

A small request from me (to everyone): if you are proposing new features  
for svg2, I'd like to ask that you please first check the list of svg2  
requirements[1] that were collected before starting on svg2.

If the feature has been requested/proposed before, please feel free to  
bring up the topic again, but also include a link to the existing proposal  
 from [1] and the associated issue number if any (since tracker picks it up  
and links to your mail automatically if you include this as text like  

On Thu, 04 Dec 2014 03:37:00 +0100, Paul LeBeau <>  

> *viewBox*
> ViewBoxes seem to be an endless source of confusion.  Trying to explain  
> how
> to calculate a viewBox can be hard.  I think that supporting  
> viewBox="auto"
> would be very useful to SVG beginners.

This has come up in previous discussions as ISSUE-2378 [2]. I agree that  
this is can be a pain point for new users. Also see the proposal to make a  
view-box property [3], which also included this feature.

On the positive side (in the shorter term), you can find some really nice  
articles written recently on this topic, see [4], and there have been  
others in the past too including pretty much every book on svg in  
existence, one recent example is the SVG Pocket Guide [5].

> *Vertical centering of text*
> People are always wanting to center text in circles and rectangles.  At  
> the
> moment there is no reliable way of vertically centering.
>  alignment-baseline support is not universal and depends on the font (?),
> and doesn't support the most common use case.  Usually people want to
> perfectly center the glyph bbox (not the Em box).

We've had requests for exposing more font-metrics, which was deemed to be  
outside the scope of SVG. But vertical centering of text in svg is  
certainly something we could address, and I have seen a number of people  
asking how to do this.

I think needs some more evaluation, if all the baseline properties in SVG  
1.1 were supported, would that be enough to address these use-cases? If  
so, what browsers have bugs blocking the use of this? If there are bugs,  
is the spec clear enough?

> *Responsive sites*
> This is a biggie.  Common things people want to do when using SVG in
> responsive websites include:
> - Elements whose scale is not affected by preserveAspectRatio
>       - circles that don't squash
>       - clipped images - clip squashes but not the image it is clipping
> - Patterns that whose scale is not affected by preserveAspectRatio
> - Percentage path coordinates
> Example:

Does address the  
non-scaling part sufficiently in your opinion?

Percentages in paths opens up the question of whether we should support  
all units inside the path data syntax. Discussed previously [6][7], and  
also in the context of the Motion path Module [8].

> *Relative positioning*
> Another common request is being able to position elements relative to  
> other
> elements.  Not sure how I feel about this, but it comes up quite a lot.
> People are used to the HTML layout model, I guess.

There are some old editor's drafts for this[9][10], but note that these  
have not been published as working drafts, and aren't active atm.


Erik Dahlstrom, Web Technology Developer, Opera Software
Co-Chair, W3C SVG Working Group

Received on Thursday, 4 December 2014 09:32:24 UTC