W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-archive@w3.org > October 2020

Re: [csswg-drafts] [css2][css-images] Zero or infinite intrinsic ratio (#4572)

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
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-714582654-1603381376-sysbot+gh@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>
&lt;Rossen_> Topic:  Zero or infinite intrinsic ratio<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4572<br>
&lt;Rossen_> github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4572<br>
&lt;fremy> TabAtkins: someone brought up an interesting test case showing the effect of an svg with infinite width or height ratio<br>
&lt;fremy> TabAtkins: in both cases, browsers treat it as having no ratio at all<br>
&lt;fremy> TabAtkins: (see examples in the issue)<br>
&lt;fremy> TabAtkins: this is not specified right now<br>
&lt;fremy> TabAtkins: if you just follow the spec right now, you should get an infinite ratio, not what we have right now<br>
&lt;fremy> TabAtkins: but we can add an exception in the images spec to cover this so implementation won't have to change<br>
&lt;fremy> florian: but that is different from the aspect-ratio behavior?<br>
&lt;fremy> TabAtkins: yes, I think this is just for compat, there is no good reason for this<br>
&lt;fremy> TabAtkins: but since it's not very important, matching legacy makes sense to me<br>
&lt;Rossen_> q<br>
&lt;fremy> fantasai: I think it's weird we do two different things<br>
&lt;fremy> emilio: or we could make the aspect-ratio do the same thing<br>
&lt;fremy> TabAtkins: we are probably fine to go either way in behavior<br>
&lt;fremy> TabAtkins: if we want to align, I am happy to do that do<br>
&lt;fremy> florian: can we do the reverse? the property does what svg does now<br>
&lt;fremy> TabAtkins: would break consistency, but both will<br>
&lt;fremy> florian: let's do that, sounds like an error case<br>
&lt;fremy> fantasai: yeah, lets be consistent<br>
&lt;fremy> fantasai: either the svg or the prop, and let's pick it<br>
&lt;fremy> Rossen_: I think the second one is easier on implementation<br>
&lt;fremy> TabAtkins: it's not yet implemented<br>
&lt;fremy> Rossen_: for svg<br>
&lt;fremy> Rossen_: it's more difficult to fix svg<br>
&lt;fremy> TabAtkins: that violates our open-bound policy<br>
&lt;fremy> TabAtkins: I don't like that much<br>
&lt;fremy> TabAtkins: but ok, I'm willing to bend on this because it's not important<br>
&lt;fremy> emilio: but infinity can't map to infinity anyway<br>
&lt;fremy> emilio: there is a limit<br>
&lt;fremy> TabAtkins: clamping doesn't break continuity<br>
&lt;fremy> TabAtkins: so there is not reason not to clamp<br>
&lt;fremy> TabAtkins: but I could go either way<br>
&lt;fremy> Rossen_: given there is no strong reason in either direction, let's try to resolve to do the same as current svg?<br>
&lt;fremy> florian: the svg spec says one thing<br>
&lt;fremy> florian: the svg should fix their spec too<br>
&lt;fremy> florian: otherwise we make a weird exception for aspect-ration then down the line someone can fix the svg code<br>
&lt;fremy> chris: well, that's a bug in the spec<br>
&lt;fremy> chris: svg2 was not supposed to add new features<br>
&lt;fremy> chris: so we should fix the spec not to allow this<br>
&lt;fremy> Rossen_: I am fine reaching out to svg if we resolve this<br>
&lt;fremy> Rossen_: any objection?<br>
&lt;chris> s/new features/new features and to document existing behavior/<br>
&lt;fremy> TabAtkins: proposed resolution is to treat aspect ratio of 0 / infinity as auto<br>
&lt;fremy> TabAtkins: this willl propagate to the prop behavior as well<br>
&lt;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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 06:42:20 UTC