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

[css3-images] Comments on object sizing terminology

From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 15:05:39 -0500
To: www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <20120314200539.GA14377@pickering.dbaron.org>
Section 5.1 (Object-Sizing Terminology) at
http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-images/#sizing-terms begins the
definition of "intrinsic dimensions" with the sentence:
  # An object's intrinsic dimensions are its preferred, natural
  # width, height, and aspect ratio, if they exist.
I don't know what "preferred, natural width, height, and aspect
ratio" means.  Are "preferred" and "natural" synonyms, or are they
different things?  Are they, in turn, synonyms for "intrinsic"?
This seems like unnecessary introduction of extra terms.

Then, later in the same definition, it says:
  # If an object (such as an icon) has multiple sizes, then the
  # largest size is taken as its intrinsic size. If it has multiple
  # aspect ratios at that size, or has multiple aspect ratios and no
  # size, then the aspect ratio closest to the aspect ratio of the
  # default object size is used.
It seems this assumes a definition of largest for sizes.  Does it
mean the size with the largest area, or the size with the largest
width/height/(larger of width or height)/(smaller of width or
height)?  I'd guess it means area, but it's not clear, and it should
be.

In the definition of "concrete object size", it says:
  # The concrete object size is the result of transforming an
  # object's intrinsic dimensions into a concrete size using its
  # specified size and default object size.
It seems to me that the concrete object size is a value computed
from three inputs (intrinsic dimensions, specified size, and default
object size).  I don't see why it's a transformation of the first in
particular.

In the definition of "default object size", it says:
  # The following informative list summarizes ...
I think this list may need to be normative; it's not clear to me
that behavior of new features is fully define if it's not.  However,
it could probably state explicitly that it's not intended to
contradict anything in CSS 2.1 or css3-backgrounds.

-David

-- 
𝄞   L. David Baron                         http://dbaron.org/   𝄂
𝄢   Mozilla                           http://www.mozilla.org/   𝄂
Received on Wednesday, 14 March 2012 20:06:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 22 May 2012 03:48:51 GMT