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

Re: [CSS2.1] abs. pos. inline-block replaced element's height set to a percentage

From: Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net>
Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2012 15:32:49 +0200
Message-ID: <50718481.7030309@moonhenge.net>
To: www-style@gtalbot.org
CC: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Public W3C www-style mailing list <www-style@w3.org>
On 06/09/2012 06:03, "Gérard Talbot" wrote:
>
> Le Mar 4 septembre 2012 12:14, Tab Atkins Jr. a écrit :
>> On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 5:54 PM, "Gérard Talbot" <www-style@gtalbot.org>
>> wrote:
>>> 2-
>>> An iframe, which is an inline-block replaced element, does not have an
>>> intrinsic height, does not have an intrinsic width and does not have an
>>> intrinsic ratio. So, how could it have, under any circumstances, an
>>> intrinsic height, like the assert text is suggesting?
>>
>> I can't find it directly stated anywhere,
>
> Here's where they can be found:
>
> "
> Otherwise, if 'width' has a computed value of 'auto', but none of the
> conditions above are met, then the used value of 'width' becomes 300px. If
> 300px is too wide to fit the device, UAs should use the width of the
> largest rectangle that has a 2:1 ratio and fits the device instead.
> "
> Section 10.3.2 Inline, replaced elements
> http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visudet.html#inline-replaced-width
>
>
> "
> Otherwise, if 'height' has a computed value of 'auto', but none of the
> conditions above are met, then the used value of 'height' must be set to
> the height of the largest rectangle that has a 2:1 ratio, has a height not
> greater than 150px, and has a width not greater than the device width.
> "
> 10.6.2 Inline replaced elements, block-level replaced elements in normal
> flow, 'inline-block' replaced elements in normal flow and floating
> replaced elements
> http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visudet.html#inline-replaced-height
>
>
>> but its intrinsic width is
>> 300px, and its intrinsic height is 150px.
>
>
> It still is not intrinsic. These 300px for width and 150px for height seem
> to be pre-defined fallback used values, and not intrinsic and not the way
> the spec defined what intrinsic dimensions means.
>
>
>> This is at least implied by
>> the algorithms, which default to 300/150 in various situations.
>
>
> How sections 10.6.2, 10.6.5 and 10.6.4 interrelate to each other is not
> perfectly clear.
>
> E.g.:
>
> Section 10.6.5 starts by stating:
>
> "This situation is similar to the previous one,"
>
> it would be clear to say similar to section 10.6.4 or to name such
> situation as "Absolutely positioned, non-replaced elements".
>
> "except that the element has an intrinsic height."
>
> But that is not so for inline-block replaced element like an iframe.
>
> "The sequence of substitutions is now:"
>
> What's the sequence of substitutions exactly? The #1 to #6 list-items in
> section 10.6.4 are a pick the rule that apply in the list while in section
> 10.6.5 it's more of a sequence of steps to execute. So, it does not seem
> to be the same thing.
>
>
> "The used value of 'height' is determined as for
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visudet.html#inline-replaced-height> inline
> replaced elements.  If 'margin-top' or 'margin-bottom' is specified as
> 'auto' its used value is determined by the rules below."
>
> But one issue that bugs/confuses me is that the first thing to do in
> section 10.6.2 in in order to determine height of inline replace element
> is to "zero" the vertical-margins. There seems to be a contradiction here.

Hi Gérard,

I'm struggling to follow what the actual issues are in this thread. 
Would be you able to summarize the things which you think are wrong in 
the spec (either things which are stated that don't match reality, or 
else contradictions, or else ambiguities).

Cheers,
Anton Prowse
http://dev.moonhenge.net
Received on Sunday, 7 October 2012 13:33:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:21:01 GMT