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

Re: Section 10.3.8 really needs to be fixed

From: David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 14:19:51 -0600
To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Cc: CSS <www-style@w3.org>
Message-id: <138F9D73-45C4-448B-A2CA-145DD9D9AB88@apple.com>

My opinion is that the current rules are bad for images as well.   
We've gotten bugs on both images and iframes (note that older versions  
of WebKit did allow replaced elements to stretch using this pattern).   
I don't see any logical reason why the replaced element should refuse  
to stretch.  It's clear what the author's intent is when left and  
right are both specified with a value of 0.

dave
(hyatt@apple.com)

On Jan 22, 2008, at 1:58 PM, L. David Baron wrote:

> 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?
>
> -David
>
> -- 
> L. David Baron                                 http://dbaron.org/
> Mozilla Corporation                       http://www.mozilla.com/
Received on Tuesday, 22 January 2008 20:20:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:58 GMT