W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > December 2009

Re: [CSS21] Scaling of replaced elements

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2009 00:35:33 -0500
Message-ID: <4B399525.4060905@inkedblade.net>
To: James Hopkins <james@idreamincode.co.uk>
CC: www-style@w3.org, Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
James Hopkins wrote:
> Currently, the spec [1] states that, for replaced elements with an 
> intrinsic ratio, it is an optional requirement that a UA scale the element.
> I'd like to propose that the current spec is further clarified so that 
> scaling a replaced element is recommended (SHOULD), as opposed to just 
> optional (MAY).
> Leaving scaling as optional could (although unlikely) result in a vendor 
> implementing behavior that differs from currently consistent 
> implementations in other browsers - FF, Safari, IE, and Opera all scale 
> replaced elements (which have an intrinsic ratio) in this way. More so, 
> authors have become reliant on the behavior found in these existing 
> implementations, and to allow the possibility of a differing 
> implementation would no doubt affect interoperability.
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visudet.html#the-width-property

While for bitmap images this is the right thing to do, other objects
such as Java applets are also replaced elements, and even if they
have a preferred size and intrinsic ratio, scaling them graphically
is rarely the right thing to do. So I don't think we want to require
scaling of the replaced elements' contents.

That said, the sentence as it stands:
   # The width of a replaced element's box is intrinsic and may be
   # scaled by the user agent if the value of this property is
   # different than 'auto'.
doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, and I have no idea what its
author intended.

Tantek, do you have any idea? You were the last person to touch
that sentence.

Received on Tuesday, 29 December 2009 05:36:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:31 UTC