- From: Dr. Olaf Hoffmann <Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 10:21:08 +0100
- To: www-svg@w3.org
Tab Atkins Jr.: > > Tab Atkins Jr.: > >>No, CSS applies, the language as it stands, not any obsolete snapshots > >>of the standard like 2.0. > > > > No, SVG 1.1 clearly references the CSS 2.0 recommendation. > > Doesn't matter. The living CSS is what is actually used. That > reference is a spec bug, nothing more. > It looks like a common problem currently, that many members of W3C groups do not understand, what a specification or recommendation is, what often results in such statements and suboptimal quality of current drafts or recommendations. > >>Once again, you misunderstand what was actually defined by CSS. I'm > >>far past the point of hoping to educate you on this matter, but for > >>the edification of other readers, here's how CSS deals with units: > > > > Well, as an experimental physicist I know what an absolute unit of > > length is > > So does everyone else in this thread and the relevant working groups. > That's not relevant here. Well, if this is the case, don't hasitate to use your knowledge to improve the current situation ;o) ... > > The ratio that Windows reported was, for many years, 96. I'm well > aware that there were other types of ratios. 96 was by far the most > common reported ratio, which is why the 4:3 ratio was assumed by > authors. Ken Stacey noted already, that microsoft seems to have missed to get this right - what is surprising, because I learned already, maybe in the last century, that X11 does the job, extracting this data from the monitor. Else in most cases microsoft reuses lots of features from others, but obviously here they failed completely. There must be millions of people paying money for this - what do they with this money, if they are not even able to copy this from X11? ;o) But I cannot see, why bugs in one specific operating system should be a reason to corrupt the meaning of absolute units in CSS - bad idea to propagate bugs from one outdated/incomplete operating system to others, who want to do useful and meaningful things with their computers... > > We didn't pull this out of nowhere. > > > There seems to be a need for authors to indicate, whether size matters > > or not for presentation. > > Regardless of this, the 4:3 ratio can still hold. You're attacking > the ratio, which is nonsense; the absolute size of a px is > theoretically arbitrary. I'm not attacking something, I just informed about the fact, that several problems about sizing of SVG documents or fragments appear, because usual browsers have bugs in interpreting units (not only absolute) - this is relevant for this discussion, because if this is not fixed, it will not help to add more and more text and definitions to SVG 2, because this will not help to solve the real problem. Browsers will continue to provide arbitrary presentations of SVG documents concerning the size, whatever is defined somewhere - and the confusion about units in CSS 2.1 is part of the problem. Because this part of CSS is borked, it should not be reused in other meaningful drafts and recommendations. And if it turns out, that implementors are not willing to interprete absolute units, those need to be depreciated, to indicate to authors, that they will not get what they specify, if they use them. ... > Please stop > diverting every single thread about units with your misunderstanding > over this issue. > Indeed I did not start this, you started to propagate your desinformation, please stop doing so and face the currently discussed problems ;o) The reason, why this problems appear again and again, especially for SVG is, because it is not solved and there are use cases suffering from those bugs. Everytime someone complains about usage of units in SVG, practically one has to say, that is does not work due to bugs in browsers, therefore it is not meanigful to look at the presentation of those browser to get an impression, what could be correct. Olaf
Received on Wednesday, 8 January 2014 09:21:37 UTC