- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 08:15:05 -0700
- To: Erik Dahlstrom <ed@opera.com>
- Cc: public-fx@w3.org
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 7:53 AM, Erik Dahlstrom <ed@opera.com> wrote: > For reference, this is the section: > > http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-images/#view-boxes-or-sizing-images-in-css > > I'd like to see a couple of examples there, and a visual representation of > how the different boxes relate to each other. > > [[ The general treatment of images in CSS is as follows: ]] > That sounds more like informative wording, is the steps that follow meant to > be normative/testable? I think so, unless there's anything crazy. I need to MUSTify it a bit. > [[ CSS does not define how image formats may react to a CSS View Box that is > a different size than the Image View Box, but commonly the image will scale > itself to fit the new dimensions, perhaps scaling both dimensions > independently, scaling both dimensions together so that it exactly touches > the sides of the view box without going outside of them, seam carving to > remove content that does not fit within the dimensions, or any other method. > ]] > Should there be a possibility for other specs to normatively define how an > "Image View Box" is fitted into the "CSS View Box"? A spec for an individual format can certainly normatively define how it adjust itself to conform to the CSS View Box. Do you recommend any change to my wording there? ~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 14 April 2010 15:15:59 UTC