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

Re: absolute-replaced-width-016/017/018 incorrect

From: Alan Gresley <alan@css-class.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 17:04:23 +1100
Message-ID: <4CB69D67.2030802@css-class.com>
To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
CC: public-css-testsuite@w3.org
Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> On 10/14/10 1:01 AM, Alan Gresley wrote:
>> Yes if you think this is correct.
>> <http://css-class.com/test/svg/background-position2.xml>
> So in this case the intrinsic width of the <svg> is 100% and the 
> intrinsic height is also 100%, right?  It also has no intrinsic ratio.
> Then per CSS 2.1 section 10.3.2 its intrinsic width is 100% of the 
> containing block width, and since height and width are styled auto that 
> becomes the used value for width.
> Per CSS 2.1 section 10.6.2 the percentage intrinsic height is ignored 
> (because the parent is auto height).  So this rule in 10.6.2 applies: 
> "the used value of 'height' must be set to the height of the largest 
> rectangle that has a 2:1 ratio, has a height not greater than 150px, and 
> has a width not greater than the device width".
> So the net result is the <svg> ends up the width of the viewport and 
> 150px high.

Thank you for that Boriz. It now makes sense.

>> Safari seems to show it correct with no clipping.
> For some definitions of "correct" that don't match the current CSS 2.1 
> text...
> -Boris

Ok, after your explanation, it is Safari that is buggy by not 
respecting 10.3.2 and 10.6.2.

Alan http://css-class.com/

Armies Cannot Stop An Idea Whose Time Has Come. - Victor Hugo
Received on Thursday, 14 October 2010 06:04:51 UTC

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