On 11 Jan 2011, at 08:49, Jon Cruz <jon@...204...> wrote:
On Jan 10, 2011, at 3:11 AM, J.B.C.Engelen@...2072... wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Jon Cruz [mailto:jon@...204...] Sent: maandag 10 januari 2011 2:18 To: Inkscape User Community Subject: Re: [Inkscape-user] Inkscape Accurancy
No, that is up to dynamic display systems and/or users to decide.
Of course, but right now the user does not have the option of choosing the exact dimensions the SVG author intended. What I meant with "1 in = 90 px always" is not how the image should be shown but how the image should be interpreted.
Yes, there is. A viewBox attribute will do just that. If a user just wants the scalable graphics to scale, then viewBox can be left off. If not, it can be added.
Surely if you want it scalable you define it in px, which isn't a fixed unit. If you define it in inches it should be an exact dimension.
Also... CSS changed from a fallback of 90 DPI to 96 DPI.
This default needs to not be updated in inkscape until we work out a way of not screwing up legacy files. To hell with complying with an updated CSS default until we comply with using units other than px.
And to control such, that is where the viewBox attribute comes in.
So <svg width="2in" height="2in" viewBox="0 0 180 180"> would relate lengths in inches to px for the whole document right? Perhaps we can do that then, and use the page's size for the width, height and viewbox. (using Inkscape's choice of 1 in = 90 px)
Yes... with the caveat that 90 DPI is an outdated default that will most likely A) be replaced by the newer 96 and B) will be drawn from the DPI reported from GTK instead of hardcoded (as is the recommendation for behavior)
Niether a or b should be done until it doesn't screw up old files.
Incidentally the spec says we can use inches mm etc, so why don't we allow that? Surely if that got fixed this issue gos away, seems like a pretty major spec non compliance on our part...