Hello Bulia,
bulia byak wrote:
If it's support for reading and rendering, sure. We want to be compliant to the standard.
It will read and render it.
If it's support for setting it via the UI, then I'm not so sure. I think it's one of the many provisions in the standard which really only make sense for manual authoring of SVG. That is, when you _write_ your SVG, you use this attribute to indicate your _intention_ which the renderer will obey according to the rules. However when you simply _draw_ your SVG, you don't need to indicate any intentions. You can just scale and clip your graphic exactly as you want it, interactively. Adding UI for setting "semantic" attributes like this one will make the interface quite messy and unpredictable, especially for novices. E.g. we will be buried by bug reports like "can't squeeze the image" from people who inadvertently set this attribute to uniform scaling only.
I definetely see your point, but the reason I'm doing this is so Inkscape can also be used as a template engine, with no predetermination of image size involved in image element creation. Not that just modifying the SVG would be grossly complex, but for the people making the layouts, it would be harder (at least that is the case here). What if there was just a drop down called "Scale" with options: "Stretch", "Fit (centered)", "Fit (top left)", "Fit (top)", "Fit (top right)","Fit (right)","Fit (bottom right)", "Fit (bottom)", "Fit (bottom left)", "Fit (left)", "Fill (centered)", "Fill (top left)", "Fill (top)", "Fill (top right)","Fill (right)","Fill (bottom right)", "Fill (bottom)", "Fill (bottom left)", and "Fill (left)"? I think these options could be set very quickly, and undoing them would be as easy as going back to "Stretch".
So, I would prefer that Inkscape could read and correctly render SVGs with this attribute, but not set it.
Regardless, of whether or not we add support for setting it in SVG, I also agree that the functionality to read and render it should be present.
Edward Flick