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

Re: [css3-images] Editorial: "Bounding box"

From: Leif Arne Storset <lstorset@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 11:15:05 +0100
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.wafqrfbttmo5g6@localhost.localdomain>
Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> skreiv Wed, 29 Feb 2012 00:59:57  
+0100

> On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>  
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 6:29 AM, Leif Arne Storset <lstorset@opera.com>  
>> wrote:
>>> I reviewed CSS3 Image Values and found no major issues. I did find some
>>> minor or editorial issues. Here is the first:
>>>
>>> Under 3.3 element(), in the sections labelled "Otherwise":
>>>
>>> | The function represents an image with width and height equal to the
>>> | bounding box of the referenced element.
>>>
>>> [plus several more mentions of "bounding box"]
>>>
>>> "Bounding box" is not defined in this spec or in CSS 2.1. In other
>>> contexts, the term "bounding box" often refers to the total painted
>>> area for an element, including shadows and overflow. I suspect
>>> "border box" is what is meant, since shadows and some border images are
>>> excluded.
>>
>> Yes, I did indeed mean "border box".  Fixed and logged as issue 3.
>
> I've subsequently changed this usage over to "decorated bounding box",
> and defined what that means for CSS and SVG:
> <http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-images/#decorated-bounding-box>
>
> Is this an acceptable definition?

Super awesome, as T-Rex would put it.

-- 
Leif Arne Storset
Core Technology Developer, Opera Software
Oslo, Norway
Received on Wednesday, 29 February 2012 10:15:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:51 GMT