- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2008 15:46:25 -0800
- To: www-style@w3.org, David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com>
fantasai wrote:
>
> CSS2.1
> ------
>
> - RESOLVED: absolutely-positioned replaced elements with auto width/height,
> both offsets specified, and no intrinsic size take their size from the
> equation
> - No resolution on what happens to replaced elements that have an intrinsic
> size; behavior here is more consistent, so need to check with other
> implementors (e.g. Mozilla).
David Baron's feedback (via IRC):
<dbaron> I'm not sure whether you should ignore intrinsic ratios.
<dbaron> but I think it's bad to have one expand and the other use the
intrinsic size
<dbaron> However, I think it's probably better not to change at all.
<dbaron> Absolute positioning is largely a bad idea anyway.
<dbaron> If authors using it for this one case have to use height:100%
width:100%, they can.
<dbaron> And that's probably better for them than giving them another 5
years of non-interoperability due to us changing the spec.
<dbaron> So I think you should revert the no-intrinsic-ratio change.
<dbaron> it's not like there's something here that authors really can't
do without this change
~fantasai
Received on Tuesday, 4 March 2008 23:48:05 UTC