- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 10:58:29 -0800
- To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- Cc: Leif Arne Storset <lstorset@opera.com>, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "bert@w3.org" <bert@w3.org>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, Rafal Chlodnicki <rchlodnicki@opera.com>
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 10:30 AM, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com> wrote: > [Leif Arne Storset:] >> Reading [1] and a message from 2009 [2], it seems the intention is that >> when scaling gradients using background-size, B&B's "intrinsic size" [3] >> should be understood as the "CSS View Box" defined in the Images spec [4]. >> (The attachment, which contains a gradient with 'background-size: 60px', >> illustrates that Gecko and WebKit follow this interpretation.) Is my >> understanding correct? > > Should we be concerned about the naming ? 'View box' means something pretty > specific in SVG. I'm fine with a different name, if we can agree on one. "CSS View Box" was the best that Elika and I could come up with. It's kinda a viewport, in that it's the box that images render into, but not quite a viewport, because it doesn't automatically clip the image to its boundaries (whether or not to clip is a higher-level decision). ~TJ
Received on Monday, 14 February 2011 19:01:23 UTC