Re: [css3-images][css3-background] Specify "CSS View Box" in B&B

On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 2:19 AM, Leif Arne Storset <> wrote:
> Tab Atkins Jr. <> skreiv Mon, 14 Feb 2011 19:58:29 +0100
>> On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 10:30 AM, Sylvain Galineau
>> <> 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.)

Ooh, I like that.  It has parallel structure with "default object
size", as you note, and it correctly suggests that it is the "final"
natural size of the image that should be used in other contexts.

Fantasai, any objections to this name change?  Could I sneak this into
the draft before WD publishing?


Received on Tuesday, 15 February 2011 18:13:22 UTC