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

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

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 01:56:12 -0700
Message-ID: <4F6997AC.2040102@inkedblade.net>
To: www-style@w3.org
On 03/21/2012 01:11 AM, fantasai wrote:
> On 03/15/2012 12:29 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>>
>> #<p>An object may have no intrinsic dimensions (such as CSS
>> gradients), only one intrinsic dimension (SVG images designed to scale
>> may have only an aspect ratio), or all three intrinsic dimensions (all
>> raster images, for example).<span class='note'>(Note: an object
>> cannot have only two intrinsic dimensions, as any two automatically
>> define the third.)</span></p>
>
> Overall, I agree with the changes you took, but I disagree with this one.
> I agree with adding a note that makes it more obvious that any two
> intrinsic dimensions define the third -- and that solves dbaron's original
> complaint. But you've lost all consideration of images with only a width
> or only a height, and you've dropped the mention of embedded documents,
> which is a useful example.

This rewrite also drops the definitions of 'intrinsic width', 'intrinsic
height', and 'intrinsic aspect ratio'.

I've reverted this part of the changes, but kept the note as normative
text. If that's insufficient, let's find a set of edits that doesn't
regress the spec.
   http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-images/#intrinsic-dimensions

Thanks~
~fantasai
Received on Wednesday, 21 March 2012 08:56:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 22 May 2012 03:48:53 GMT