Re: [WICD] comments [#6 and #7]

On Saturday 2006-01-28 22:31 +0100, Bert Bos wrote:
> 5) 3.2.2 Scalable Background Image
> 6) Ditto
> 
> The background area of an element doesn't have to be a rectangle. An 
> inline element or an element at a page break may consist of several 
> boxes. CSS3 will have properties to control how a background is split 
> or repeated over such boxes, but until those are ready, the behavior is 
> undefined.
> 
> WICD should probably also say that those cases are undefined.

The group discussed this issue.  We don't see any specific references in
the mentioned section saying that the background area is a rectangle.
And since this section refers to CSS's definition of backgrounds which
says that some of these issues related to inline elements are undefined,
we don't see the need to repeat that they are undefined.

> 7) Ditto
> 
> CSS3 will have properties to allow background images to scale to the 
> size of an element (or to any other size). Which is, I believe, 
> compatible with the idea in this draft that the intrinsic size of a 
> "scalable background image" without an explicit size is magically the 
> same as the size of the element. (Apart from issue 6 above, of course.)
> 
> But it seems that the definition of the intrinsic size belongs in CSS, 
> not in WICD, because that's also where the size of scalable 
> *foreground* images is defined.

The group discussed this yesterday in our discussion of [1] and also
came to the conclusion that it should be specified in CSS, and I'm
planning to send a message shortly raising an issue on CSS 2.1 regarding
undefined behavior for scalable background images.

-David

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-cdf/2006Jan/0032

-- 
L. David Baron                                <URL: http://dbaron.org/ >
           Technical Lead, Layout & CSS, Mozilla Corporation