- From: Leif Arne Storset <lstorset@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 11:19:44 +0100
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> skreiv Mon, 14 Feb 2011 19:58:29 +0100 > 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). Agree that the SVG confusion is pertinent. How about something in the vein of "concrete object size"? (It's a concrete size based, among other things, upon the default object size.) -- Leif Arne Storset Core Technology Developer, Opera Software Oslo, Norway
Received on Tuesday, 15 February 2011 10:20:28 UTC