- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 09:44:18 -0800
- To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Cc: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 9:40 AM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote: > On Monday 2011-02-14 10:56 -0800, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >> | 1. If the image has an intrinsic width or height, >> | then that intrinsic width/height becomes the image's >> | used width/height. >> | >> | 2. If the image has an intrinsic ratio, and either an >> | intrinsic width or an intrinsic height, calculate the >> | missing dimension from the provided dimension and the >> | ratio. >> | >> | 3. If the image has no intrinsic ratio and no intrinsic >> | width, the used width is 1em. >> | >> | 4. If the image has no intrinsic ratio and no intrinsic >> | height, the used height is 1em. > > I think steps (3) and (4) here aren't quite right, since if the > image has an intrinsic ratio, but neither an intrinsic width nor an > intrinsic height, then these rules don't define a result. > > It might be better to revert these to the wording used before, in > step 5: > >> # 5. If the image's height cannot be resolved from the rules >> # above, then the image's height is assumed to be 1em. The rules weren't meant to be exclusive - they're meant to be applied one-by-one. I'm fine with using your suggested wording to make it more explicit, though. ~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 23 February 2011 17:46:18 UTC