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

Re: [css3-images] Comments on object sizing terminology

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 15:19:20 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDDdnGd=Uhc=yy=bpO9TXHyiebtqB-OeUVAZhiS_x8fHmw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 1:05 PM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote:
> 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.

Those aren't meant to be spec-relevant terms; this is a general
introductory sentence.  I can remove either "preferred" or "natural",
but I don't know how to trim it further without saying something like
"An object's intrinsic dimensions are its intrinsic dimensions.".  I'm
open to suggestions for better wording.


> 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.

Hm, that text is definitely unclear; there's no intrinsic ordering of
"size".  fantasai, you wrote that text originally; what did you mean
to say in that sentence?


> 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.

As far as I can tell, that's already what that sentence is saying.


> 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.

I agree it needs to be normative.  fantasai recently changed it to
informative, but I've changed it back.  I've also added the note you
suggested.

~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 14 March 2012 22:20:07 GMT

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