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: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 09:44:18 -0800
Message-ID: <AANLkTimBO_vNXt2fNRkcdrOynVjc_XQ6gb2=rO_pCY_h@mail.gmail.com>
To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Cc: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 9:40 AM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote:
> On Monday 2011-02-14 10:56 -0800, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> | 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.
>
> I think steps (3) and (4) here aren't quite right, since if the
> image has an intrinsic ratio, but neither an intrinsic width nor an
> intrinsic height, then these rules don't define a result.
>
> It might be better to revert these to the wording used before, in
> step 5:
>
>> # 5. If the image's height cannot be resolved from the rules
>> # above, then the image's height is assumed to be 1em.

The rules weren't meant to be exclusive - they're meant to be applied
one-by-one.  I'm fine with using your suggested wording to make it
more explicit, though.

~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 23 February 2011 17:46:18 GMT

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