On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 11:44 AM Albert Astals Cid via Development
wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I understand that the current QtSVG support is clearly stated to be SVG Tiny
> 1.2
>
> We have some clients that would like to add some rendering features from the
> non Tiny variant.
>
> For example supportin
What do you think?
Should we allow some small features outside of the declared SVG Tiny 1.2
support?
If this involves bigger or structural or conceptual changes, perhaps the
module ought to have a maintainer first? %)
- Eirik Aa.
___
Development
On 10/13/21 11:58, Giuseppe D'Angelo via Development wrote:
On 13/10/2021 11:43, Albert Astals Cid via Development wrote:
Should we allow some small features outside of the declared SVG Tiny 1.2
support?
I'm not against in principle (liberal in what you accept, etc.etc.), but
as you say, it's
On 13/10/2021 11:43, Albert Astals Cid via Development wrote:
I know this would be confusing as to being able to document exactly what QtSVG
supports, but it seems to me that if we allow bit by bit small improvements we
could eventually end up with more of the SVG specification supported, since i
Hello,
I understand that the current QtSVG support is clearly stated to be SVG Tiny
1.2
We have some clients that would like to add some rendering features from the
non Tiny variant.
For example supporting x,y attributes in tspan. This would help fixing the
rendering of the attached SVG (com
