I actually just followed some examples from Om. We have our element as the root of a component which would be the <svg>. This is positioned and so anything drawn in it would start a (0,0). So to me, this makes sense for how it is being done at the moment.
‹peter On 7/26/16, 3:52 PM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote: >Internally, it¹s always setting it to 0,0. It looks to me like some >renderers might be doing some relative positioning, but I did not study >them well enough to figure it out. > >I think it was in charts, so Peter should probably have a better idea. > >On Jul 26, 2016, at 10:41 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On 7/26/16, 11:47 AM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I agree there should be a Group object. >>> >>> The problem is that the way the classes are currently constructed is >>>that >>> 100 pixel ³Rect" positioned at 100,100 actually contains the following >>> markup: <svg x=³100² y=³100"><rect x=³0² y=³0² width=³100² >>> height=³100²/></svg> >> >> Are you saying that code is doing relative positioning re-calculation? >>I >> would wonder why it does that. Otherwise, a more straightforward >>mapping >> would make sense. >> >> -Alex >> >
