Re: 300x150 px defaults too aggressive

* Jonathan Watt wrote:
>While working on the replaced element code for Mozilla I've come across some
>cases where the behavior currently mandated by the CSS 2.1 text is
>counterintuitive, and unnecessarily so. Please consider the following case
>(contrived for simplicity), where the ’width’ and ’height’ attributes provide
>the intrinsic width and height:
>
>   <svg style="width:100%;" width="100%" height="100px"/>
>
>Since the intrinsic and specified widths are both 100%, and the intrinsic height 
>is 100px, one might reasonably expect the replaced element to have a used width 
>of 100% and a used height of 100px. However, the current CSS 2.1 text says the 
>used height must be 150px. (Note the SVG in this example has no intrinsic ratio 
>because the ’width’ attribute has a percentage value.)

Is there some up to date description that defines the various intrinsic
properties of the SVG document? For example, per section 6.17 of SVG 1.1
I would arrive at a different conclusion than you do above, and last I
checked there were disputes whether percentage widths / heights can ever
contribute to intrinsic heights / widths / ratios, not to mention that
the effect of SVG view specifications on this has yet to be defined, see
e.g. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-css-wg/2007JanMar/0069 and
follow-ups (member-only).

I think before the CSS Working Group can consider changes to the text in
CSS 2.1, we need to have a clear and complete description of the SVG
side of the issue, so we can properly evaluate the impact of any change
(which will be hard enough with multiple accumulated change proposals).
That aside, could you give some real world example where you'd write the
code above?
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/

Received on Monday, 17 September 2007 10:04:38 UTC