W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-testsuite@w3.org > December 2010

Re: background-intrinsic-004

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2010 03:05:48 -0500
Message-ID: <4CF7535C.8080700@inkedblade.net>
To: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>
CC: Řyvind Stenhaug <oyvinds@opera.com>, "public-css-testsuite@w3.org" <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>
On 12/01/2010 05:37 PM, Simon Fraser wrote:
> On Nov 30, 2010, at 5:14 PM, fantasai wrote:
>
>> On 11/24/2010 07:34 AM, Řyvind Stenhaug wrote:
>>> http://test.csswg.org/source/contributors/fantasai/submitted/css2.1/backgrounds/background-intrinsic-004.htm
>>
> I read that as the background-image being scaled-to-fit, maintaining aspect ratio, into the background-positioning area. And I
> think <http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/colors.html#propdef-background-position> is telling me that the background-positioning area
> is the padding box.
>
> So the first ".test" has a padding box of 80x100px. green-intrinsic-ratio-portrait.svg has an intrinsic ratio of 4/6. So the
> SVG will be scaled up with a factor of 16.666667, giving a width of 66.666667. Hence there's a gap down each side, and the red
> shows through.
>
> Is my analysis flawed, or is the test invalid?

The default value of background-position is top left. Does that help?

~fantasai
Received on Thursday, 2 December 2010 08:06:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 2 December 2010 08:06:32 GMT