- From: Erik Dahlström <ed@opera.com>
- Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 15:06:46 +0100
- To: "Cameron McCormack" <cam@mcc.id.au>, "Dirk Schulze" <dschulze@adobe.com>
- Cc: "www-svg@w3.org" <www-svg@w3.org>
On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 07:53:05 +0100, Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com> wrote: > >> On Mar 12, 2015, at 7:08 AM, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au> wrote: >> >> Is it defined what the default size of an SVG resource document is? I >> don’t think it is, and we probably should define it. >> >> I am not sure whether it is possible to write content that depends on >> this size in regular SVG documents (if you think of a way, let me >> know!), but I think it is possible with SVG glyphs in OpenType. For >> example, if the font document is: >> >> <svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg"> >> <rect glyphid="1" width="100%" height="20"/> >> </svg> >> >> this would define a glyph consisting of a rectangle that hangs just >> below the baseline at a height of 20 units-per-em. It’s not clear what >> the 100% would resolve against, though. In a regular SVG document that >> is being presented in some viewport then that viewport size will >> determine the viewBox automatically. >> >> For font documents, I think it could make sense to define the viewport >> as a square whose width and height are the units-per-em value from the >> font’s head table. More sense than any other values, probably. > > Is this question specific to font documents? I think the question might apply to <use> resource documents too. For that case it could possibly also depend on whether resource documents are shared between <use> instances or not (not sure this is defined). > Or do you think even for standalone documents this is not specified > enough? I'd agree that it's not clear which viewport to use for resources that don't themselves specify an intrinsic width and height. -- Erik Dahlstrom, Web Technology Developer, Opera Software Co-Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
Received on Thursday, 12 March 2015 14:07:16 UTC