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

Re: [css3-images] Features Overview

From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 23:02:58 -0700
Message-Id: <F7BC0C57-FF3B-4F71-85EB-BC690B34CFA9@gmail.com>
Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, "public-media-fragment@w3.org" <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>


On May 9, 2011, at 3:57 PM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:

> # If an object (such as an icon) has multiple sizes, then the largest size
> # is used.
> # If it has multiple aspect ratios of that size (or of no size), then the
> # aspect ratio closest to the aspect ratio of the default object size is used.
> # http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-images/#default-object-size
> 
> The latter sentence is pretty arbitrary. You can pick a different arbitrary,
> e.g. the ratio closest to a square is chosen, and portrait is preferred over
> landscape. Or vice-versa.
> 
> The issue here is that CSS should, ideally, choose the variant that gives
> the best resolution for the shape we're trying to squeeze the image into.
> So we need the multiple sizes available, but they all have to represent
> the same part of the image in the normal case (an icon image, of consistent
> aspect ratio, with multiple resolutions packaged together).

It seems like you should only compare sizes of like aspect ratios, so you'd have to pick the aspect ratio first. Otherwise, what is the "largest size"? Is it the image with the greatest area? Or the one with the longest dimension? Suppose we are trying to squeeze into a square that is, say. 100px x 100px, and there are three choices: 1,000px x 4px, 6px x 1,000px, or 50px x 60px. I think I know which I'd choose, but maybe it isn't always clear cut. 
Received on Tuesday, 10 May 2011 06:06:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:40 GMT