W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > December 2012

Re: [css3-ui][issue] resize doesn't describe actual UA's behavior

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 09:52:18 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDBFFKuOgwva3RRcDM4bUNfJSoCO4JbRWtXsyK4k4Q2d=A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Fran├žois REMY <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com>
Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 1:58 PM, Fran├žois REMY
<francois.remy.dev@outlook.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I just wanted to post a small bug report for the css3-ui spec [1]:
>
> The specced 'resize' proprety's behavior is *completely* different from the behavior implemented in browsers supporting the property (FireFox/Chrome).
>
> The spec proposes to create "scaling factors" for the element when the user resizes it that stick even if the size of the element changes (:hover...) (but that's a problem according to me because there's no way for a script to understand that scaling factor).
>
> To the contrary, browsers implement the resize property by allowing the user to set the inline-style's width/height properties on the resizable element. In all UAs that support 'resize', an "!important" rule will make the resize ineffective.
>
> I believe we should update the spec to match the UAs implementation (something I propose would however be to set min-width instead of width to allow hover effects to work expectedly).

Better would be set *both* width and min-width; if you set just
min-width it won't shrink below its initial size.  I like setting
min-width because it overrides author-set max-width, which I've been
annoyed by before when trying to resize something to be larger.

But I agree - it should match UA behavior.

Emails are usually sufficient logging of a bug, assuming the subject
was tagged appropriately.

~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 19 December 2012 17:53:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:21:03 GMT