- From: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
- Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 14:58:16 +0100
- To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Cc: "public-css-testsuite@w3.org" <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>
>>>> "The default object size for cursor images is a UA-defined size >>>> that should be based on the size of a typical cursor on the UA’s operating system. >>> >>>> The concrete object size is determined using the default sizing >>>> algorithm. If an operating system is incapable of rendering a cursor >>>> above a given size, cursors larger than that size must be shrunk to >>>> within the OS-supported size bounds, while maintaining the cursor image’s intrinsic ratio, if any." >>> >>> Hmm, the default sizing algorithm is that wierd 150 x 300 px thing? >>> Which is then shrunk down to "typical" cursor size? > >> No, that's not that one. It's this one, which is much less silly: > >> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-images-3/#default-sizing-algorithm > >> Relevant quote: > >>> [...] >>> If the specified size has no constraints: >>> - If the object has an intrinsic height or width [...] >>> - Otherwise, its size is resolved as a contain constraint against the default object size. > > Where default object size is, here, the default cursor size. I can buy > that, but wonder if the trail is sufficiently clear for implementors > to also see that and implement it. In the spec, there are cross-links, that should make it a bit more obvious than when the plain text is pasted into a mail. That said, if you have a suggestion for a short note which would summarize what this means without mostly repeating the normative prose, it would probably be a nice thing to include. >> I'll also note that cursors are somewhat special, and there may be platform >> limitations as to what you can do. The spec mentions one about size, > > Yes, I see that Safari used to have a max size of 50x50 but now allows > at least 64x64 for example. In general I have used 32 or 64 as being > big enough to see. After reading the spec more closely (note to self) > it may be worth having some tests that probe behaviour with slightly > larger and ridiculously large sizes. There's a bit of background info on compat in this mail: http://www.w3.org/mid/D7A72232-1575-4283-8C25-FD7E49E0DC00@rivoal.net This could give you ideas for tests or environments in which to run your tests. > In general, I think we need to tie testing and spec writing more > closely together. Have exploratory tests earlier to inform spec > development, with the expectation that tests and spec may need to > change over time. Completely agree. > Thanks for your helpful comments, Florian My pleasure. You took the time to write a bunch of test on something I'm working on. Reviewing them is the least I can do. - Florian
Received on Tuesday, 24 March 2015 13:58:41 UTC