- From: Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
- Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2009 23:53:11 -0800
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Cc: James Hopkins <james@idreamincode.co.uk>, www-style@w3.org
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 9:35 PM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote: > 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). This makes sense to me. >> 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. Doubtful, but possible. And indeed where interoperability is already demonstrated, the spec should further direct authors and new implementations along those lines. >> [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. I doubt this. Could you provide a concrete / real-world example (with URL) of a Java applet that *does* have a preferred size/width *and* intrinsic ratio *and* scaling it graphically would *not* be the right thing to do? > 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. 1. That sentence has not been touched since REC-CSS2-19980512: http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-CSS2-19980512/visudet.html#the-width-property So no, unfortunately I cannot provide any reasoning to why it is so. 2. Based on my understanding/familiarity with that section (and related chapters), that sentence does not make sense to me. In my opinion it should be removed. Thanks, Tantek -- http://tantek.com/
Received on Wednesday, 30 December 2009 07:54:04 UTC