- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2011 12:24:26 -0700
- To: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>
- Cc: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, "Boris Zbarsky (bzbarsky@MIT.EDU)" <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com> wrote: > I forgot to mention this linkage in the chain of evaluation ... > > http://www.w3.org/TR/SVGMobile12/coords.html#IntrinsicSizing > > My recollection is that this explains how the percentages interact with the attachment location. > > My other recollection is that, although it's in SVG Tiny 1.2, it was the preferred model and that it was going to be moved or replicated somewhere else in spec land. > > > Like I said, I'm fuzzy on this area but this combined with the other references led some of us (and definitely me) to the conclusion that we had no SVG-provided examples of the absence of intrinsic ratio during IE9 development. And none of the new feature set of IE10 has shaken that understanding. Read that section you linked again - it still agrees with what we've said, and in fact does so in much clearer terms than SVG1.1 did. In particular, note this fragment: "Specifically, percentage values do not provide an intrinsic width or height, and do not indicate a percentage of the containing block. Rather, they indicate the portion of the viewport that is actually covered by image data." Thus, in the example I gave, there is no intrinsic height (as it took the lacuna value of 100%), and there is no intrinsic aspect ratio (as there was no viewBox, and one of the width/height values was a percentage). There is only an intrinsic width. ~TJ
Received on Monday, 8 August 2011 19:25:22 UTC