Fwd: The (new, enhanced) viewbox property

Tab wrote:
> You may be remembering the 2.1 definition

Yes you are right.  I was referring to CSS 2.1 spec.


> Interesting.  Can you point out one of these?

For a start, there are the examples in the Use section (5.6) which express
width and height in cm.  However that only means that they are rendered at
a different scale.

The main one I can think of is the one in the "Units" section (7.10) rather
naturally :)  It is affected in two ways because it uses both "in" and
"em".  It renders completely differently at a DPI other than 96.

I think there are others also, but I can't think of them right now.

Paul




On 9 January 2014 06:38, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 7:30 PM, Paul LeBeau <paul.lebeau@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Tab wrote:
> >>  It's completely allowed by the specs to do so.
> >
> > That's true, but it no-one does. Because:
> >
> > a) The SVG spec basically defers to CSS, and CSS strongly encourages you
> to
> > use 96dpi.
>
> Where does it do this?  Note that
> <http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-values/#absolute-lengths> specifically
> calls out that you can assign it to anything; it provides as one of
> the definitions the "96 dpi reference pixel" thing, but explicitly
> calls out physical units.
>
> (You may be remembering the 2.1 definition, which predates the
> decisions I'm talking about in this thread.)
>
> > b) It you don't default to 96, many SVG files break.  Including some
> > examples in the spec.
>
> Interesting.  Can you point out one of these?
>
> ~TJ
>