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 18:09:45 -0700
Message-ID: <4F6A7BD9.3070809@inkedblade.net>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: www-style@w3.org
On 03/21/2012 05:46 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>
> You can treat them like that, but it's silly to say "go look at this
> complicated text and table from 2.1, and then think for a while about
> whether declarations from the element apply to the boxes created by
> 'content'" when the answer is just that there are no constraints at
> all.
>
> You're technically correct that they're just anonymous
> replaced-element boxes (and thus, because they're anonymous, they
> receive the default values for the relevant properties), but that
> doesn't help much when I'm trying to write a simple and clear spec.
> ^_^

Actually, it does. Considering them to be replaced elements means that
everything else about replaced element rendering (e.g. page-breaking
behavior, sizing of SVG with aspect ratio and no size) applies to these
images as well. If you treat them as something different, then everywhere
we talk about replaced elements we have to remember to mention them
specifically. And I am NOT OK with doing that. It's a good way to
introduce errors.

Like the error that's in the spec right now about how 'content'-specified
SVG files are sized.

~fantasai
Received on Thursday, 22 March 2012 01:10:13 GMT

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