Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [svg-developers] overflow="hidden"

Expand Messages
  • Jerrold Maddox
    David Thanks - you may have noticed my note on the 08 presentation about the lack of support for patterns (and text flow). That is still the case, sorry to
    Message 1 of 13 , Apr 1 5:16 AM
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      David

      Thanks - you may have noticed my note on the 08 presentation about the lack
      of support for patterns (and text flow).
      That is still the case, sorry to say.

      Does any one know where support is for patterns (and SMIL and text flow)
      stands now with the various browsers?

      And, while we are at it, the very different support for font-size in Opera.
      Look at the heading of this file in Opera, Firefox and Safari.
      http://www.personal.psu.edu/jxm22/svgopen2008/gentiumgreek.svg

      Jerry

      On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 10:19 PM, ddailey <ddailey@...> wrote:

      >
      >
      > After thinking about your message a bit more Jerry, I figured out what you
      > were saying, I think: namely that by overlaying a duplicate but offset
      > version of the pattern you can achieve the sort of overflow I had in mind.
      >
      > I added in the little script I was talking about, and got it working. It is
      > rather fun.. Then I noticed that your code, and the amended version below,
      > only works in Firefox and IE/ASV, but is not even loading the pattern in
      > Opera, Chrome or Safari. Am not sure why but maybe someone can explain. Of
      > course the SMIL doesn't work in Firefox, but at least it loads the pattern
      > with just a letter in the pattern space.
      >
      > cheers
      > David
      >
      >
      > <svg version="1.1" baseProfile="basic"
      > xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg"
      > xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" id="svg-root" width="100%"
      > height="100%" onload="startup(evt)">
      > <script><![CDATA[
      >
      > function startup(){
      > Q=document.getElementById("Q")
      > Q.beginElement()
      > }
      > i=66
      >
      > function rebirth(evt){
      > var TQ=document.getElementById("2756")
      > TQ.firstChild.nodeValue=String.fromCharCode(i++)
      > Q.beginElement()
      > }
      > //]]>
      > </script>
      >
      >
      > <defs>
      >
      > <text x="5" y="25" font-size="48" fill="#dcb" opacity=".6" id="2756"
      > font-weight="normal">A<animate attributeName="y" dur="2s" values="0; 30; 0"
      >
      > repeatCount="indefinite"/><animate id="Q" attributeName="font-size"
      > dur="2s" values="60; 12"
      > repeatCount="1" begin="indefinite" onend="rebirth(evt)"/></text>
      >
      >
      > <pattern id="pattern1" patternUnits="userSpaceOnUse" x="0" y="0"
      > width="30" height="30">
      > <use xlink:href="#2756"/>
      > </pattern>
      >
      > <pattern id="pattern2" patternUnits="userSpaceOnUse" x="15" y="20"
      > width="30" height="30">
      > <use xlink:href="#2756"/>
      > </pattern>
      >
      > </defs>
      > <rect fill="#012" x="0" y="0" width="100%" height="100%"/>
      > <rect fill="url(#pattern1)" x="0" y="0" width="100%" height="100%"/>
      > <rect fill="url(#pattern2)" x="0" y="0" width="100%" height="100%"
      > opacity=".6"/>
      >
      >
      > </svg>
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: Jerrold Maddox
      > To: svg-developers@yahoogroups.com <svg-developers%40yahoogroups.com>
      > Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 3:32 PM
      > Subject: Re: [svg-developers] <pattern> overflow="hidden"
      >
      > David
      >
      > There a number of these in my presentation in 08.
      > http://www.personal.psu.edu/jxm22/svgopen2008/
      >
      > Jerry
      >
      > On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 3:28 PM, Jerrold Maddox <jxm22@...<jxm22%40psu.edu>>
      > wrote:
      >
      > > David
      > >
      > > Does this do what you want?
      > >
      > > Jerry
      > >
      > > <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
      > > <!DOCTYPE svg PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD SVG 1.0//EN"
      > >
      > > "http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/1.1/DTD/svg11.dtd">
      > > <svg version="1.1" baseProfile="basic" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg"
      > xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" id="svg-root" width="100%"
      > height="100%" >
      > >
      > >
      > > <defs>
      > >
      > > <symbol id="2756">
      > > <text x="10" y="20" font-size="17px" fill="#dcb" opacity=".6"
      > font-weight="normal"> ❖ </text>
      > >
      > > </symbol>
      > >
      > > <pattern id="pattern1" patternUnits="userSpaceOnUse" x="0" y="0"
      > > width="30" height="30">
      > > <use xlink:href="#2756"/>
      > >
      > > </pattern>
      > >
      > > <pattern id="pattern2" patternUnits="userSpaceOnUse" x="15" y="20"
      > > width="30" height="30">
      > >
      > > <use xlink:href="#2756"/>
      > > </pattern>
      > >
      > >
      > > </defs>
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > <rect fill="#012" x="0" y="0" width="100%" height="100%"/>
      > >
      > >
      > > <rect fill="url(#pattern1)" x="0" y="0" width="100%" height="100%"/>
      > >
      > > <rect fill="url(#pattern2)" x="0" y="0" width="100%" height="100%"
      > opacity=".6"/>
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > <rect fill="#ddc" x="0" y="0" width="10%" height="18%"/>
      > >
      > > <text x="37" y="115" font-size="100px" fill="#000" opacity="1">
      > ❖</text>
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > </svg>
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 2:25 PM, Dailey, David P. <david.dailey@...<david.dailey%40sru.edu>
      > >wrote:
      > >
      > >>
      > >>
      > >> I was interested in changing the default on <pattern overflow="hidden">
      > to
      > >> overflow = something else, so that the pattern is not clipped to the
      > >> rectangle containing the pattern, but in fact dribbles over, but
      > couldn't
      > >> seem to remember how. Though I am pretty sure I did it before to make
      > >> triangular tilings, I can't seem to find my examples. Does anyone recall
      > the
      > >> trick.
      > >>
      > >> Thanks
      > >> David
      > >>
      > >> From: svg-developers@yahoogroups.com <svg-developers%40yahoogroups.com><svg-developers%
      > 40yahoogroups.com>[mailto:
      > >> svg-developers@yahoogroups.com <svg-developers%40yahoogroups.com><svg-developers%
      > 40yahoogroups.com>] On
      >
      > >> Behalf Of ddailey
      > >> Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 4:56 PM
      > >> To: svg-developers@yahoogroups.com <svg-developers%40yahoogroups.com><svg-developers%
      > 40yahoogroups.com>
      >
      > >> Subject: [svg-developers] -- feGaussianBlur standardDeviation = 0
      > >>
      > >> The spec (1.1) says:
      > >> [...]
      > >> A value of zero disables the effect of the given filter primitive (i.e.,
      > >> the result is a transparent black image).
      > >> If the attribute is not specified, then the effect is as if a value of 0
      > >> were specified.
      > >> -------------
      > >>
      > >> Opera and Firefox both handle this correctly (according to the spec).
      > But
      > >> it seems to me the spec is a bit too fussy. It is written, I presume, to
      > >> avoid a problem of dividing by zero in the definition of the blur
      > function:
      > >>
      > >> H(x) = exp(-x2/ (2s2)) / sqrt(2* pi*s2)
      > >>
      > >> But when you think of it this way: more standarddeviation means more
      > blur.
      > >> Zero standard deviation should mean no blur.
      > >> The issue arose when I wanted to use script to append a blur filter onto
      > >> an object and allow a slider to control the amount of blur. Rather than
      > >> removing the filter attribute from the DOM I just wanted to change
      > StdDev to
      > >> zero. Alas, while ASV knew what I wanted to do, Opera and FF followed
      > the
      > >> spec. I think this attribute is only used in feGaussian blur, but even
      > if it
      > >> were used in other contexts, I do think that authors will think zero
      > means
      > >> "no variability", not "turn the image black and make it transparent"
      > >>
      > >> Is this the sort of thing that should be raised here, in SVG IG, or with
      > >> SVG WG, or with a nontrivial subset of the three?
      > >>
      > >> cheers
      > >> David
      > >>
      > >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > >>
      > >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > >>
      > >>
      > >>
      > >
      > >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
      >


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Erik Dahlstrom
      On Thu, 01 Apr 2010 14:16:31 +0200, Jerrold Maddox wrote: ... Thanks, reported CORE-28927 for the font-size issue. It s possible to workaround
      Message 2 of 13 , Apr 1 7:10 AM
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        On Thu, 01 Apr 2010 14:16:31 +0200, Jerrold Maddox <jxm22@...> wrote:

        ...
        > And, while we are at it, the very different support for font-size in
        > Opera.
        > Look at the heading of this file in Opera, Firefox and Safari.
        > http://www.personal.psu.edu/jxm22/svgopen2008/gentiumgreek.svg

        Thanks, reported CORE-28927 for the font-size issue.

        It's possible to workaround that bug by using the 'font-size' attribute
        instead of 'style'.

        Cheers
        /Erik

        --
        Erik Dahlstrom, Core Technology Developer, Opera Software
        Co-Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
        Personal blog: http://my.opera.com/macdev_ed
      • Cameron Laird
        On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 08:16:31AM -0400, Jerrold Maddox wrote: . . . ... . . . It strikes me that is the
        Message 3 of 13 , Apr 1 3:43 PM
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 08:16:31AM -0400, Jerrold Maddox wrote:
          .
          .
          .
          > Does any one know where support is for patterns (and SMIL and text flow)
          > stands now with the various browsers?
          .
          .
          .
          It strikes me that <URL: http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/IG/wiki/ >
          is the natural place to keep such information. Unless someone says,
          "no, look at YYYYY", I'm inclined to open a new page in the Wiki on
          the subject of "browser support for patterns", and/or similar.
        • Doug Schepers
          Hi, David- ... Interestingly, I ran into this very issue this past weekend. I agree with you... the effects of values should be intuitive, especially when
          Message 4 of 13 , Apr 1 4:41 PM
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi, David-

            ddailey wrote (on 3/30/10 4:56 PM):
            > The spec (1.1) says: [...] A value of zero disables the effect of the
            > given filter primitive (i.e., the result is a transparent black
            > image). If the attribute is not specified, then the effect is as if a
            > value of 0 were specified. -------------
            >
            > Opera and Firefox both handle this correctly (according to the spec).
            > But it seems to me the spec is a bit too fussy. It is written, I
            > presume, to avoid a problem of dividing by zero in the definition of
            > the blur function:
            >
            > H(x) = exp(-x2/ (2s2)) / sqrt(2* pi*s2)
            >
            > But when you think of it this way: more standarddeviation means more
            > blur. Zero standard deviation should mean no blur. The issue arose
            > when I wanted to use script to append a blur filter onto an object
            > and allow a slider to control the amount of blur. Rather than
            > removing the filter attribute from the DOM I just wanted to change
            > StdDev to zero. Alas, while ASV knew what I wanted to do, Opera and
            > FF followed the spec. I think this attribute is only used in
            > feGaussian blur, but even if it were used in other contexts, I do
            > think that authors will think zero means "no variability", not "turn
            > the image black and make it transparent"
            >
            > Is this the sort of thing that should be raised here, in SVG IG, or
            > with SVG WG, or with a nontrivial subset of the three?

            Interestingly, I ran into this very issue this past weekend. I agree
            with you... the effects of values should be intuitive, especially when
            being iterated though via script (this is why I think arc segments
            should still render when the start and end points are the same).

            Illustrator, whence come the filters, also agrees with you, though
            Inkscape follows the SVG spec. I think this is something that should be
            changed, since there are differences in implementations. If you
            wouldn't mind resending your message to www-svg, I'll remember to raise
            it in discussion with the SVG WG.

            Regards-
            -Doug
          • Doug Schepers
            Hi, David- FYI, I ve entered this into our SVG WG issue tracker: http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2317 Thanks for bringing it to our attention.
            Message 5 of 13 , Apr 2 9:44 AM
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              Hi, David-

              FYI, I've entered this into our SVG WG issue tracker:

              http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2317

              Thanks for bringing it to our attention.

              Regards-
              -Doug

              Doug Schepers wrote (on 4/1/10 7:41 PM):
              > Hi, David-
              >
              > ddailey wrote (on 3/30/10 4:56 PM):
              >> The spec (1.1) says: [...] A value of zero disables the effect of the
              >> given filter primitive (i.e., the result is a transparent black
              >> image). If the attribute is not specified, then the effect is as if a
              >> value of 0 were specified. -------------
              >>
              >> Opera and Firefox both handle this correctly (according to the spec).
              >> But it seems to me the spec is a bit too fussy. It is written, I
              >> presume, to avoid a problem of dividing by zero in the definition of
              >> the blur function:
              >>
              >> H(x) = exp(-x2/ (2s2)) / sqrt(2* pi*s2)
              >>
              >> But when you think of it this way: more standarddeviation means more
              >> blur. Zero standard deviation should mean no blur. The issue arose
              >> when I wanted to use script to append a blur filter onto an object
              >> and allow a slider to control the amount of blur. Rather than
              >> removing the filter attribute from the DOM I just wanted to change
              >> StdDev to zero. Alas, while ASV knew what I wanted to do, Opera and
              >> FF followed the spec. I think this attribute is only used in
              >> feGaussian blur, but even if it were used in other contexts, I do
              >> think that authors will think zero means "no variability", not "turn
              >> the image black and make it transparent"
              >>
              >> Is this the sort of thing that should be raised here, in SVG IG, or
              >> with SVG WG, or with a nontrivial subset of the three?
              >
              > Interestingly, I ran into this very issue this past weekend. I agree
              > with you... the effects of values should be intuitive, especially when
              > being iterated though via script (this is why I think arc segments
              > should still render when the start and end points are the same).
              >
              > Illustrator, whence come the filters, also agrees with you, though
              > Inkscape follows the SVG spec. I think this is something that should be
              > changed, since there are differences in implementations. If you
              > wouldn't mind resending your message to www-svg, I'll remember to raise
              > it in discussion with the SVG WG.
              >
              > Regards-
              > -Doug
            • ddailey
              Thanks Doug! It isn t a huge issue of course, since one can just plugin in a value of .00001 and get almost the same result. One can also, I think, use the
              Message 6 of 13 , Apr 2 1:30 PM
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                Thanks Doug!

                It isn't a huge issue of course, since one can just plugin in a value of .00001 and get almost the same result. One can also, I think, use the same formula for H(x) with a limit as s --> 0 and end up with "zero blur," so it could have both a mathematical and an intuitive basis, if that were to matter.

                cheers
                David
                ----- Original Message -----
                From: Doug Schepers
                To: svg-developers@yahoogroups.com
                Cc: ddailey
                Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 12:44 PM
                Subject: Re: [svg-developers] -- feGaussianBlur standardDeviation = 0



                Hi, David-

                FYI, I've entered this into our SVG WG issue tracker:

                http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/track/issues/2317

                Thanks for bringing it to our attention.

                Regards-
                -Doug

                Doug Schepers wrote (on 4/1/10 7:41 PM):
                > Hi, David-
                >
                > ddailey wrote (on 3/30/10 4:56 PM):
                >> The spec (1.1) says: [...] A value of zero disables the effect of the
                >> given filter primitive (i.e., the result is a transparent black
                >> image). If the attribute is not specified, then the effect is as if a
                >> value of 0 were specified. -------------
                >>
                >> Opera and Firefox both handle this correctly (according to the spec).
                >> But it seems to me the spec is a bit too fussy. It is written, I
                >> presume, to avoid a problem of dividing by zero in the definition of
                >> the blur function:
                >>
                >> H(x) = exp(-x2/ (2s2)) / sqrt(2* pi*s2)
                >>
                >> But when you think of it this way: more standarddeviation means more
                >> blur. Zero standard deviation should mean no blur. The issue arose
                >> when I wanted to use script to append a blur filter onto an object
                >> and allow a slider to control the amount of blur. Rather than
                >> removing the filter attribute from the DOM I just wanted to change
                >> StdDev to zero. Alas, while ASV knew what I wanted to do, Opera and
                >> FF followed the spec. I think this attribute is only used in
                >> feGaussian blur, but even if it were used in other contexts, I do
                >> think that authors will think zero means "no variability", not "turn
                >> the image black and make it transparent"
                >>
                >> Is this the sort of thing that should be raised here, in SVG IG, or
                >> with SVG WG, or with a nontrivial subset of the three?
                >
                > Interestingly, I ran into this very issue this past weekend. I agree
                > with you... the effects of values should be intuitive, especially when
                > being iterated though via script (this is why I think arc segments
                > should still render when the start and end points are the same).
                >
                > Illustrator, whence come the filters, also agrees with you, though
                > Inkscape follows the SVG spec. I think this is something that should be
                > changed, since there are differences in implementations. If you
                > wouldn't mind resending your message to www-svg, I'll remember to raise
                > it in discussion with the SVG WG.
                >
                > Regards-
                > -Doug




                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.