- From: Jonathan Watt <jwatt@jwatt.org>
- Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 12:51:35 +0200
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Cc: www-svg@w3.org, www-style@w3.org, public-cdf@w3.org
Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: > * 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, http://www.w3.org/TR/SVGMobile12/coords.html#IntrinsicSizing > and last I > checked there were disputes whether percentage widths / heights can ever > contribute to intrinsic heights / widths / ratios, That's an orthogonal discussion that isn't relevant to the cases I'm concerned with as far as I can see. > 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). Although it's SVG that has brought this to my attention, I don't think this is necessarily an SVG issue. It's simply an issue of the CSS spec covering the cases where replaced elements have only _one_ of intrinsic width or intrinsic height, and no intrinsic ratio - a case that doesn't seem to have been considered. > That aside, could you give some real world example where you'd write the > code above? The less contrived case would be when the SVG is embedded by reference and the CSS is on the embedding element (e.g. HTML <object>). Jonathan
Received on Monday, 17 September 2007 10:51:55 UTC