^ This is what I don't understand. Yesterday you said
> the reference SVG is there, which is vector
> so I cannot see anyway which can invalidate any existing answers if they followed the spec of "exact construction"
but then you went on to add a second, contradictory, spec, and today you've made a series of comments which suggest you don't actually understand the SVG spec. `<ellipse cy="43" cx="101" rx="53" ry="27.4" fill="#424143"></ellipse>` isn't exactly hard to convert to a bounding box.