- From: Øyvind Stenhaug <oyvinds@opera.com>
- Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 14:01:28 +0100
- To: www-style@w3.org
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 UTC