- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2011 15:08:02 -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 3:04 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 1:36 PM, Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com> wrote: >> Please submit some test cases on this. Because it's gone well beyond simple at this point. > > The CSS2.1 testsuite somewhat tests this already in > <http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/20110323/html4/background-intrinsic-006.htm>, > though it's limited by the lack of background-size, which wasn't > introduced until B&B. For example, Chrome fails this for silly > reasons - we first size the viewport to be 40%/60% of the background > canvas, then size the <svg> to be 40%/60% of the viewport bounds. Btw, the reason why it only "somewhat" tests it is because you can pass it in two ways - by doing things correctly, or by taking the 40%/60% as the size of the image, and then ignoring the percentages when sizing the <svg> element, so that the <rect> ends up filling the viewport. The latter is a pretty inconsistent position to be in, but I've seen stranger things, so it's possible that, if IE is passing this test, it's doing so with the latter behavior. I hope it does the former, though. ~TJ
Received on Monday, 8 August 2011 22:08:58 UTC