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

Re: background-intrinsic-004

From: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2010 08:35:18 -0800
Cc: Řyvind Stenhaug <oyvinds@opera.com>, "public-css-testsuite@w3.org" <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>
Message-id: <56EC2334-8DC0-4E2E-A97D-D35F63E08735@me.com>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
On Dec 2, 2010, at 12:05 am, fantasai wrote:

> 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?

Ah, so the SVG should be flush left in the padding box, with the 13px gap down the right side, rather than a gap down both sides?

That points me at where WebKit might be going wrong, thanks.

Received on Thursday, 2 December 2010 16:36:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:13:22 UTC