W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > January 2014

Re: The (new, enhanced) viewbox property

From: Erik Dahlström <ed@opera.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2014 13:46:54 +0100
To: 'www-svg' <www-svg@w3.org>, "Brian Birtles" <bbirtles@mozilla.com>
Message-ID: <op.w9e64guedhsuf5@gnorps>
On Thu, 09 Jan 2014 03:37:41 +0100, Brian Birtles <bbirtles@mozilla.com>  
wrote:

...
>> Issue 3: What bounding box to use for (b)?
>> Proposal: The stroke bounding box as defined in SVG2[2] (which, by the
>> way, includes markers).
>> Rationale: It's nearly always more desirable than the geometric bounding
>> box, at least for simple use cases which is what (b) is aimed at.
>
> Alex Bell agrees to using stroke bounding box.[2] No other feedback yet.

Note: "(b)" refers to "SVG fragment identifiers" when an svg is referenced  
 from somewhere.

I would prefer this to be taking into account all possible things that  
extend the rendered shapes, and I'm not sure the stroke bounding box  
considers anti-aliasing. I would not expect that to be clipped away  
because then things at the edges could potentially look bad. Using the  
stroke bounding box will just give us the same issue later on, and there's  
also clipping, masking and filters that can affect the resulting "rendered  
bbox".

An alternative might be to add support for overflowing the svg viewport,  
though this may only provide the desired result in some cases. Svg used as  
a tiled css background-image is one example where it might be problematic,  
or when there's overlapping content and you need the svg to be fully  
contained.


-- 
Erik Dahlstrom, Web Technology Developer, Opera Software
Co-Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
Received on Thursday, 9 January 2014 12:47:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:54:50 UTC