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

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

From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 16:41:30 -0700
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <20120314234130.GA22221@pickering.dbaron.org>
On Wednesday 2012-03-14 15:19 -0700, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> 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.

So it might be that the sentence might be trying to say just:
  # The term intrinsic dimensions refers to the set of the intrinsic
  # height, intrinsic width, and intrinsic aspect ratio, which may
  # or may not exist for a given object.
or it might be trying to say that plus:
  # These intrinsic dimensions represent a preferred or natural size
  # of the object itself, that is, they are not a function of the
  # context in which the object is used.

Might that (either the first sentence or both) be acceptable
wording?

(The sequence of terms separated by commas in "preferred, natural
width, height, and aspect ratio" just doesn't make sense to me.)

> > 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.

I'm just saying that the wording appears to imply that one of the
inputs is somehow different in character from the other two.  I
think the wording should instead imply that the concrete object size
is a function of three inputs and not put those inputs into two
categories.

-David

-- 
𝄞   L. David Baron                         http://dbaron.org/   𝄂
𝄢   Mozilla                           http://www.mozilla.org/   𝄂
Received on Thursday, 15 March 2012 03:54:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 22 May 2012 03:48:52 GMT