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

Re: [css3-background] 'background-size: auto auto' and images with intrinsic size in one dimension

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2011 15:08:02 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDAogO5mB=exbznu4GKGbw6Osr1-sA-03AFG_jAi0gAWGg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>
Cc: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, "Boris Zbarsky (bzbarsky@MIT.EDU)" <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 3:04 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 1:36 PM, Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com> wrote:
>> Please submit some test cases on this.  Because it's gone well beyond simple at this point.
>
> The CSS2.1 testsuite somewhat tests this already in
> <http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20110323/html4/background-intrinsic-006.htm>,
> though it's limited by the lack of background-size, which wasn't
> introduced until B&B.  For example, Chrome fails this for silly
> reasons - we first size the viewport to be 40%/60% of the background
> canvas, then size the <svg> to be 40%/60% of the viewport bounds.

Btw, the reason why it only "somewhat" tests it is because you can
pass it in two ways - by doing things correctly, or by taking the
40%/60% as the size of the image, and then ignoring the percentages
when sizing the <svg> element, so that the <rect> ends up filling the
viewport.

The latter is a pretty inconsistent position to be in, but I've seen
stranger things, so it's possible that, if IE is passing this test,
it's doing so with the latter behavior.  I hope it does the former,
though.

~TJ
Received on Monday, 8 August 2011 22:08:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:43 GMT