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

RE: [CSS2.1] list-style-image sizing rules don't match reality

From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 19:12:03 +0000
To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <045A765940533D4CA4933A4A7E32597E2AB5E3EF@TK5EX14MBXC120.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Let me try one more time. Your initial message [1] said:

# My suggested change is to replace line #3 in the algorithm with 
# "If the image has no intrinsic ratio, intrinsic width, or intrinsic 
# height, then its intrinsic ratio is assumed to be 1:1."

It seems this is the behavior you want to *replace*, not the behavior
you are suggesting. Yes/No ?

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Feb/0364.html


> In Lists, I'll just define the right terms and refer to Image Values, but
> for 2.1, let's replace those 6 steps with these changes:
> 
> | 1. If the image has an intrinsic width or height, then that intrinsic
> | width/height becomes the image's used width/height.
> |
> | 2. If the image has an intrinsic ratio, and either an intrinsic width
> | or an intrinsic height, calculate the missing dimension from the
> | provided dimension and the ratio.
> |
> | 3. If the image has no intrinsic ratio and no intrinsic width, the
> | used width is 1em.
> |
> | 4. If the image has no intrinsic ratio and no intrinsic height, the
> | used height is 1em.
> 
> Again, for reference, the original steps were:
> 
> # 1. If the image has an intrinsic width or height, then # that intrinsic
> width/height becomes the image's used # width/height.
> #
> # 2. If the image's intrinsic width or height is given as # a percentage,
> then that percentage is resolved against 1em.
> #
> # 3. If the image has no intrinsic ratio and a ratio cannot # be
> calculated from its width and height, then its intrinsic # ratio is
> assumed to be 1:1.
> #
> # 4. If the image has a width but no height, its height is # calculated
> from the intrinsic ratio.
> #
> # 5. If the image's height cannot be resolved from the rules # above, then
> the image's height is assumed to be 1em.
> #
> # 6. If the image has no intrinsic width, then its width is # calculated
> from the resolved height and the intrinsic ratio.
> 
> The normative changes in my suggestion are (1) removing the obsolete
> reference to percentage intrinsic widths, and (2) removing the behavior
> this thread is about, that images with one intrinsic dimension and no
> intrinsic ratio assume a ratio of 1:1 (instead, they just fill in the
> second dimension with 1em).  All other changes are editorial.
> 
> No tests need to be updated for this change, because this area wasn't
> adequately tested to begin with.  (If it was, we'd have noticed that the
> rules were broken.)
> 
> ~TJ

Received on Monday, 14 February 2011 19:12:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:37 GMT