- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 11:41:43 -0800
- To: Leif Arne Storset <lstorset@opera.com>
- CC: www-style@w3.org, Cathy.Chan@nokia.com
On 01/17/2011 02:15 AM, Leif Arne Storset wrote: > <Cathy.Chan@nokia.com> skreiv Fri, 14 Jan 2011 20:54:42 +0100 > >> The spec provides the following formula for computing the background size when background-repeat is ‘round’ for one or both >> dimensions (http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-background/#the-background-size): >> >> [[ >> If X ≠ 0 is the width of the image after step one and W is the width of the background positioning area, then the rounded >> width X' = W / round(W / X) where round() is a function that returns the nearest natural number (integer greater than zero). >> ]] >> >> My understanding of the "nearest natural number" is that it could be smaller than or larger than the given number. Thus, 2.4 >> should round (down) to 2, whereas 2.7 should round (up) to 3. >> >> However, the examples seem to imply that rounding is always in the "up" direction to the next natural number, which is not >> necessarily the nearest. > > The spec was changed back in 2009 [0], but the examples have not been updated to reflect the change. I'm guessing the editors > will take in your suggested corrections. Examples updated. Please let me know if I missed any others: http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-background/ ~fantasai
Received on Thursday, 20 January 2011 19:42:18 UTC