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

On 02/15/2011 10:12 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 2:19 AM, Leif Arne Storset<lstorset@opera.com>  wrote:
>> 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.)
>
> 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?

Works for me. Check it in.

~fantasai

Received on Tuesday, 15 February 2011 20:38:07 UTC