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

Re: [css3-images] interaction of parts of the definitions of object sizing

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 02:47:25 -0700
Message-ID: <4F69A3AD.2020603@inkedblade.net>
To: www-style@w3.org
On 03/15/2012 05:08 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>
> * I've split the old "replaced elements" case into three, since it was
> wrong before.  There's now a section for the 'content' property
> (non-replaced, which is all you can do in 2.1), a section for replaced
> elements (just calling out that they *dont'* use the sizing algorithm
> here, and pointing to CSS2.1 sections 10.4 and 10.7 instead), and then
> a section for the *contents* of replaced elements, hooking into
> 'object-fit'.

Images in generated content are replaced elements just as much as actual
replaced elements are. They're effectively anonymous replaced elements,
but they behave the same way. If this is not clear, it should be a CSS2.1
issue: we shouldn't be treating them as a separate case here.

> Please review these changes and let me know if you're satisfied with them.

Still need to do that... but I suspect I'll say something like "instead of
trying to exhaustively define all possible sizing constraints here (which
is just asking for future failure), we should provide a default algorithm
and make it easy for specs to hook into it".

~fantasai
Received on Wednesday, 21 March 2012 09:48:02 GMT

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