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

Re: [css3-images][css3-background] Specify "CSS View Box" in B&B

From: Leif Arne Storset <lstorset@opera.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 11:19:44 +0100
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.vqxwa6mstmo5g6@nynorsk>
Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> skreiv Mon, 14 Feb 2011 19:58:29  
+0100

> On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 10:30 AM, Sylvain Galineau
> <sylvaing@microsoft.com> wrote:
>> [Leif Arne Storset:]
>>> Reading [1] and a message from 2009 [2], it seems the intention is that
>>> when scaling gradients using background-size, B&B's "intrinsic size"  
>>> [3] should be understood as the "CSS View Box" defined in the Images
>>> spec [4]. (The attachment, which contains a gradient with
>>> 'background-size: 60px', illustrates that Gecko and WebKit follow this
>>> interpretation.) Is my understanding correct?
>>
>> Should we be concerned about the naming ? 'View box' means something  
>> pretty
>> specific in SVG.
>
> I'm fine with a different name, if we can agree on one.  "CSS View
> Box" was the best that Elika and I could come up with.  It's kinda a
> viewport, in that it's the box that images render into, but not quite
> a viewport, because it doesn't automatically clip the image to its
> boundaries (whether or not to clip is a higher-level decision).

Agree that the SVG confusion is pertinent. How about something in the vein  
of "concrete object size"? (It's a concrete size based, among other  
things, upon the default object size.)

-- 
Leif Arne Storset
Core Technology Developer, Opera Software
Oslo, Norway
Received on Tuesday, 15 February 2011 10:20:28 GMT

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