- From: CSS Meeting Bot via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2020 15:42:58 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
The CSS Working Group just discussed `Zero or infinite intrinsic ratio`, and agreed to the following: * `RESOLVED: treat aspect ratio of 0 or infinity as auto, propagate to the aspect-ratio property behavior as well` <details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary> <Rossen_> Topic: Zero or infinite intrinsic ratio<br> <TabAtkins> github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4572<br> <Rossen_> github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4572<br> <fremy> TabAtkins: someone brought up an interesting test case showing the effect of an svg with infinite width or height ratio<br> <fremy> TabAtkins: in both cases, browsers treat it as having no ratio at all<br> <fremy> TabAtkins: (see examples in the issue)<br> <fremy> TabAtkins: this is not specified right now<br> <fremy> TabAtkins: if you just follow the spec right now, you should get an infinite ratio, not what we have right now<br> <fremy> TabAtkins: but we can add an exception in the images spec to cover this so implementation won't have to change<br> <fremy> florian: but that is different from the aspect-ratio behavior?<br> <fremy> TabAtkins: yes, I think this is just for compat, there is no good reason for this<br> <fremy> TabAtkins: but since it's not very important, matching legacy makes sense to me<br> <Rossen_> q<br> <fremy> fantasai: I think it's weird we do two different things<br> <fremy> emilio: or we could make the aspect-ratio do the same thing<br> <fremy> TabAtkins: we are probably fine to go either way in behavior<br> <fremy> TabAtkins: if we want to align, I am happy to do that do<br> <fremy> florian: can we do the reverse? the property does what svg does now<br> <fremy> TabAtkins: would break consistency, but both will<br> <fremy> florian: let's do that, sounds like an error case<br> <fremy> fantasai: yeah, lets be consistent<br> <fremy> fantasai: either the svg or the prop, and let's pick it<br> <fremy> Rossen_: I think the second one is easier on implementation<br> <fremy> TabAtkins: it's not yet implemented<br> <fremy> Rossen_: for svg<br> <fremy> Rossen_: it's more difficult to fix svg<br> <fremy> TabAtkins: that violates our open-bound policy<br> <fremy> TabAtkins: I don't like that much<br> <fremy> TabAtkins: but ok, I'm willing to bend on this because it's not important<br> <fremy> emilio: but infinity can't map to infinity anyway<br> <fremy> emilio: there is a limit<br> <fremy> TabAtkins: clamping doesn't break continuity<br> <fremy> TabAtkins: so there is not reason not to clamp<br> <fremy> TabAtkins: but I could go either way<br> <fremy> Rossen_: given there is no strong reason in either direction, let's try to resolve to do the same as current svg?<br> <fremy> florian: the svg spec says one thing<br> <fremy> florian: the svg should fix their spec too<br> <fremy> florian: otherwise we make a weird exception for aspect-ration then down the line someone can fix the svg code<br> <fremy> chris: well, that's a bug in the spec<br> <fremy> chris: svg2 was not supposed to add new features<br> <fremy> chris: so we should fix the spec not to allow this<br> <fremy> Rossen_: I am fine reaching out to svg if we resolve this<br> <fremy> Rossen_: any objection?<br> <chris> s/new features/new features and to document existing behavior/<br> <fremy> TabAtkins: proposed resolution is to treat aspect ratio of 0 / infinity as auto<br> <fremy> TabAtkins: this willl propagate to the prop behavior as well<br> <fremy> RESOLVED: treat aspect ratio of 0 or infinity as auto, propagate to the aspect-ratio property behavior as well<br> </details> -- GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4572#issuecomment-714582654 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Thursday, 22 October 2020 15:43:00 UTC