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

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

From: Øyvind Stenhaug <oyvinds@opera.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 14:01:28 +0100
To: www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.wa7qgqpubunlto@oyvinds-desktop>
On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 23:19:20 +0100, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>  
wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 1:05 PM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>  
> wrote:

>> 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?

Additionally, what is the definition of how "close" one aspect ratio is to  
another?

If it "largest size" really is intended to say largest area, then say the  
default object size is a square. Which size would be closer, 128x64 or  
64x128?

-- 
Øyvind Stenhaug
Core Norway, Opera Software ASA
Received on Thursday, 15 March 2012 13:02:02 GMT

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