- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2009 00:35:33 -0500
- To: James Hopkins <james@idreamincode.co.uk>
- CC: www-style@w3.org, Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
James Hopkins wrote: > Currently, the spec [1] states that, for replaced elements with an > intrinsic ratio, it is an optional requirement that a UA scale the element. > > I'd like to propose that the current spec is further clarified so that > scaling a replaced element is recommended (SHOULD), as opposed to just > optional (MAY). > > Leaving scaling as optional could (although unlikely) result in a vendor > implementing behavior that differs from currently consistent > implementations in other browsers - FF, Safari, IE, and Opera all scale > replaced elements (which have an intrinsic ratio) in this way. More so, > authors have become reliant on the behavior found in these existing > implementations, and to allow the possibility of a differing > implementation would no doubt affect interoperability. > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visudet.html#the-width-property While for bitmap images this is the right thing to do, other objects such as Java applets are also replaced elements, and even if they have a preferred size and intrinsic ratio, scaling them graphically is rarely the right thing to do. So I don't think we want to require scaling of the replaced elements' contents. That said, the sentence as it stands: # The width of a replaced element's box is intrinsic and may be # scaled by the user agent if the value of this property is # different than 'auto'. doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, and I have no idea what its author intended. Tantek, do you have any idea? You were the last person to touch that sentence. ~fantasai
Received on Tuesday, 29 December 2009 05:36:15 UTC