W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2011

Re: [css3-images] gradient sizing for GC?

From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 09:51:11 -0700
Message-Id: <A3669805-1C5D-4B27-8BCF-9DBC084344F3@gmail.com>
Cc: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>

On Apr 15, 2011, at 9:16 AM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 7:48 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote:
>> On 4/14/11 8:46 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>>> An image used as the sole value of 'content' should, imo, turn the
>>> element itself into a replaced element, rather than just filling it
>>> with an anonymous replaced element.
>> This seems like magic voodoo.  Should these two:
>>  1) content: url(foo);
>>  2) content: url(foo) '';
>> really render differently?  The justification for that feels awfully thin.
> In my personal opinion, yes.

What happens when an IMG has no width or height in either the CSS or the image data? Can that happen with SVG?

I would probably expect it to be about the size of one of those missing image icons (question mark in a square). We can't guess at an appropriate size, so encourage authors to set it in CSS. 

I don't think it should be a different size if there is text in the content value too. But I don't get why it would look different if it was a replaced element instead of filled with a replaced element. Is it the difference between 'inline' and 'inline-block' on the display?
Received on Friday, 15 April 2011 16:51:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:45 UTC