- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 18:53:19 +0000 (UTC)
- To: fantasai <fantasai@escape.com>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Thu, 5 Feb 2004, fantasai wrote: >> >> Just define the preferred minimum width as the width Mozilla achieves. > > That's like saying "define the preferred minimum width (used to calculate > the shrink-to-fit width) as the shrink-to-fit width". Yes. That's my point. The spec doesn't define it. > It's rarely an issue, though. Most people don't have gradually > resizing boxes as layout elements Yes they do. Resize the window. Anyway, either way the spec allows for this already. > You're right, as usual. *bows* My point got lost in translation, heh. > Substitute "h/hmax > w/wmax" for "hmax/h > wmax/w". And thanks for > being so patient. :) Could you write a test case that has an image that demonstrates this? > I'm not entirely sure how one would create a CSS test case that > demonstrates how scaling by one proposed algorithm is better than > scaling by another. I could write you a testcase that shows the final > result of each algorithm so you can compare, if that's what you mean... Either write a testcase which would be suitable for the W3C CSS2.1 test suite assuming your proposed changes are taken, or write a testcase that allows two of the variables in your expression to be changed by resizing the window, demonstrating when the window size is such that the image is sized in what you think is the suboptimal manner. Cheers, -- Ian Hickson )\._.,--....,'``. fL U+1047E /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. http://index.hixie.ch/ `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 9 February 2004 13:53:37 UTC