Re: absolute-replaced-width-016/017/018 incorrect

L. David Baron wrote:
> On Wednesday 2010-10-13 20:39 -0400, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>> On 10/13/10 7:32 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
>>> The tests:
>>> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20100917/xhtml1/absolute-replaced-width-016.xht
>>> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20100917/xhtml1/absolute-replaced-width-017.xht
>>> http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20100917/xhtml1/absolute-replaced-width-018.xht
>>> appear to me to be incorrect.
>>>
>>> The svg element in these tests has no intrinsic ratio and no
>>> intrinsic size, since it has no viewBox and no height/width
>>> attributes.
>> SVG defaults the width/height attributes to 100% if they're not
>> specified.  So the sizing there looks correct (and is interoperable
>> at least with Webkit and Presto).


Correct, SVG covers 100% of the viewport when no height or width is 
specified but only if it is just a svg document with a svg extension 
(no (x)html). I didn't know that it was default behavior.


> Right; I had the feeling I was forgetting something.
> 
> So the Gecko behavior on this test is correct.
> 
> -David


Yes if you think this is correct.


<http://css-class.com/test/svg/background-position2.xml>


I don't know why it's has that height or why the polyline is clipped. 
Opera 10.62 shows the same as Gecko. IE9 does not clip the blue 
polyline but the red border is the same height. Safari seems to show 
it correct with no clipping.



-- 
Alan http://css-class.com/

Armies Cannot Stop An Idea Whose Time Has Come. - Victor Hugo

Received on Thursday, 14 October 2010 05:02:17 UTC