W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > January 2008

Re: Section 10.3.8 really needs to be fixed

From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 11:58:45 -0800
To: David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com>
Cc: CSS <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20080122195845.GA1109@ridley.dbaron.org>

On Tuesday 2008-01-22 13:49 -0600, David Hyatt wrote:
> The spec is just plain wrong.  The results it gives don't match the common 
> sense rendering that Web site authors would expect for:
> <iframe style="position:absolute;left:0;top:0;right:0;bottom:0"></iframe>
> If I specify a top, bottom, right and left of 0, then why on earth should 
> the object's intrinsic width or height override?  It's completely 
> counter-intuitive that you can't use this pattern to stretch an iframe or 
> image in CSS2.1.

Is the same true for images?  I thought the issue here is that, for
this case, iframes act somewhere between replaced and non-replaced,
rather than that the rules for replaced elements in general were
wrong.  Is that not the case?


L. David Baron                                 http://dbaron.org/
Mozilla Corporation                       http://www.mozilla.com/
Received on Tuesday, 22 January 2008 19:58:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:33 UTC