Bugzilla

(In reply to Cameron McCormack (:heycam) from comment #3)
> According to the SVG specification, the transform that vector-effect:non-scaling-stroke should counteract is the one from the current coordinate space up to the furthest ancestor <svg> element.

Strictly speaking, the spec uses the term "the furthest ancestral SVG **viewport**" (emphasis added).  And in this case, I'd say that the relevant "SVG viewport" is the specified-sized rectangular background region that the image is rendered into.

For comparison, note that we get "expected results" (skinny stroke regardless of px sizing) from a sized `<img>` element:
```
  <img src="X.svg" style="height:400px; width:400px">
```

But the stroke grows with the px sizing if you use `background-size` as in:
```
  <div style="width:400px; height: 400px;
               background: url(X.svg);
               background-size: 400px 400px;">
```

Intuitively it seems like these scenarios should be equivalent.

> So that doesn't include any transforms caused by CSS image sizing.

I agree that e.g. CSS transforms and other graphical effects outside of the SVG document shouldn't be taken into consideration (i.e. shouldn't be counteracted) -- but the known-in-advance CSS-pixel-valued size of the viewport should probably be taken into consideration.

(In reply to Cameron McCormack (:heycam) from comment #3)
> According to the SVG specification, the transform that vector-effect:non-scaling-stroke should counteract is the one from the current coordinate space up to the furthest ancestor <svg> element.

Strictly speaking, the spec uses the term "the furthest ancestral SVG **viewport**" (emphasis added).  And in this case, I'd say that the relevant "SVG viewport" is the specified-sized rectangular background region that the image is rendered into.

For comparison, note that we get "expected results" (skinny stroke regardless of px sizing) from a sized `<img>` element:
```
  <img src="X.svg" style="height:400px; width:400px">
```

But the stroke grows with the px sizing if you use `background-size` as in:
```
  <div style="width:400px; height: 400px;
               background: url(X.svg);
               background-size: 400px 400px;">
```

Intuitively it seems like these scenarios should be equivalent.

> So that doesn't include any transforms caused by CSS image sizing.

I agree that e.g. CSS transforms and other paint-time graphical effects outside of the SVG content shouldn't be taken into consideration (i.e. shouldn't be counteracted) -- but the known-in-advance CSS-pixel-valued size of the viewport should probably be taken into consideration.