- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2010 03:05:48 -0500
- To: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>
- CC: Øyvind Stenhaug <oyvinds@opera.com>, "public-css-testsuite@w3.org" <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>
On 12/01/2010 05:37 PM, Simon Fraser wrote: > On Nov 30, 2010, at 5:14 PM, fantasai wrote: > >> On 11/24/2010 07:34 AM, Øyvind Stenhaug wrote: >>> http://test.csswg.org/source/contributors/fantasai/submitted/css2.1/backgrounds/background-intrinsic-004.htm >> > I read that as the background-image being scaled-to-fit, maintaining aspect ratio, into the background-positioning area. And I > think <http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/colors.html#propdef-background-position> is telling me that the background-positioning area > is the padding box. > > So the first ".test" has a padding box of 80x100px. green-intrinsic-ratio-portrait.svg has an intrinsic ratio of 4/6. So the > SVG will be scaled up with a factor of 16.666667, giving a width of 66.666667. Hence there's a gap down each side, and the red > shows through. > > Is my analysis flawed, or is the test invalid? The default value of background-position is top left. Does that help? ~fantasai
Received on Thursday, 2 December 2010 08:06:25 UTC