Proposal: SVG Viewbox be controlled as a CSS propery about csswg-drafts

[tabatkins]

Yup, sorry about the request getting buried. I got swamped for a while and am trying to catch up on proposals.

Yes, viewbox should totes be a property; nearly everything in SVG should be. A simplified version that solely exposes none | <length>{4} would be utterly uncontroversial. I like, however, the bounds value, and having it be defined simply as the stroke bounding box is good. This is essentially just CSS shrinkwrapping (in theory, of course; it's different in practice).

[AmeliaBR]

@tabatkins Are you able to move this issue to the FX repo? I'd like to keep any view-box spec under the (shared) responsibility of the SVG WG.

And if you do start drafting something, Tab, I'd be happy to review it. If you don't get to it, it's still on my eventual To-do list. Just buried under far too many other to-do's!

[bradkemper]

Would this affect non-SVG stuff too? I'm no expert on this attribute, but it sounds kind of like a clip-path:inset() effect which also affects the element's instrinsic dimensions, causing it to be scaled so that the new dimensions are contained by the original dimensions. Is that something we want for plain old HTML too?

[tabatkins]

@bradkemper I don't think so. This doesn't clip, either; viewBox just (a) from the POV of stuff inside the SVG, sets up the coordinate space they position themselves in (and in particular, what "100%" maps to), and (b) from the POV of stuff outside the SVG, defines the intrinsic aspect ratio of the element.

(a) doesn't mean anything for non-SVG elements. (b) could theoretically, but it's a very roundabout way to handle aspect ratio, and misses some features we'd like for a real aspect-ratio property, so I don't think we should try to smuggle aspect-ratio into general CSS via viewbox.

[tabatkins]

This issue was moved to w3c/fxtf-drafts#7