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

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

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 16:19:15 -0800
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=hG837W9MN-8KXryM4bDudVbM822zMuTF_ruc0@mail.gmail.com>
To: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Regarding list-style-image:

On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 10:56 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.)

Can we discuss this at the next conf call?

~TJ
Received on Friday, 18 February 2011 00:20:07 GMT

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