- From: Bert Bos <bert@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 17:46:03 +0100
- To: public-cdf@w3.org
On Tuesday 31 January 2006 00:42, L. David Baron wrote:
> On Saturday 2006-01-28 22:31 +0100, Bert Bos wrote:
> > 5) 3.2.2 Scalable Background Image
> > 6) Ditto
> >
> > The background area of an element doesn't have to be a rectangle.
> > An inline element or an element at a page break may consist of
> > several boxes. CSS3 will have properties to control how a
> > background is split or repeated over such boxes, but until those
> > are ready, the behavior is undefined.
> >
> > WICD should probably also say that those cases are undefined.
>
> The group discussed this issue. We don't see any specific references
> in the mentioned section saying that the background area is a
> rectangle. And since this section refers to CSS's definition of
> backgrounds which says that some of these issues related to inline
> elements are undefined, we don't see the need to repeat that they are
> undefined.
The word "rectangle" isn't there, but the text says:
"[...] it will display, as large as will fit, where the background
area to cover is seen as a viewport."[1]
The question is how large is that, if the area to cover has this shape:
+---------------+
| |
+---------------+
+---------------------+
| |
+---------------------+
Maybe we can indeed include some text in CSS 2.1, as you suggest below.
That would solve my issue. Currently, the paragraph in WICD still looks
like normative text, because it states something that doesn't follow
from the example alone.
[1]
http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-WICD-20051219/#scalable-background-image
>
> > 7) Ditto
> >
> > CSS3 will have properties to allow background images to scale to
> > the size of an element (or to any other size). Which is, I believe,
> > compatible with the idea in this draft that the intrinsic size of a
> > "scalable background image" without an explicit size is magically
> > the same as the size of the element. (Apart from issue 6 above, of
> > course.)
> >
> > But it seems that the definition of the intrinsic size belongs in
> > CSS, not in WICD, because that's also where the size of scalable
> > *foreground* images is defined.
>
> The group discussed this yesterday in our discussion of [1] and also
> came to the conclusion that it should be specified in CSS, and I'm
> planning to send a message shortly raising an issue on CSS 2.1
> regarding undefined behavior for scalable background images.
Sounds good.
>
> -David
>
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-cdf/2006Jan/0032
Bert
--
Bert Bos ( W 3 C ) http://www.w3.org/
http://www.w3.org/people/bos W3C/ERCIM
bert@w3.org 2004 Rt des Lucioles / BP 93
+33 (0)4 92 38 76 92 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France
Received on Tuesday, 31 January 2006 16:46:10 UTC