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 18:25:38 -0700
Message-ID: <4F6A7F92.2060404@inkedblade.net>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: www-style@w3.org
On 03/21/2012 06:18 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> I, um, didn't define anything special about the rendering of anything.
>   This is about sizing.  Page-breaking is irrelevant.

You're asserting that they're not replaced elements. Which implies that
none of the rules that apply to replaced elements apply to them.

>> Like the error that's in the spec right now about how 'content'-specified
>> SVG files are sized.
> Could you elaborate? I have no idea what you're alluding to.


   # If 'height' and 'width' both have computed values of 'auto' and the
   # element has an intrinsic ratio but no intrinsic height or width, then
   # the used value of 'width' is undefined in CSS 2.1. However, it is
   # suggested that, if the containing block's width does not itself
   # depend on the replaced element's width, then the used value of 'width'
   # is calculated from the constraint equation used for block-level,
   # non-replaced elements in normal flow.

An SVG image with an aspect ratio and no intrinsic size will take the
fill-available measure and compute its extent from that. This is
incompatible with using a default object size of 300x150.

Received on Thursday, 22 March 2012 01:26:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:57 UTC