- From: Arron Eicholz <Arron.Eicholz@microsoft.com>
- Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 00:11:07 +0000
- To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Monday, March 14, 2011 5:01 PM Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 4:47 PM, Arron Eicholz > <Arron.Eicholz@microsoft.com> wrote: > > Thank you for your feedback. The CSSWG has addressed your concerns in > the upcoming publication of the CSS 2.1 specification[1]. > > > > The CSSWG resolved to update the specification: > > > > # 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's intrinsic width or height is given as a > > percentage, > > # then that percentage is resolved against 1em. > > # 3. If the image has a width but no height or vice versa, the > > missing > > # dimension is calculated from the intrinsic ratio (if any). > > # 4. If the image's width or height cannot be resolved from the > > rules above, > > # then that dimension is assumed to be 1em. > > > > We hope this closes your issue. > > > > Please respond before 18 March, 2011 if you do not accept the current > resolution. > > We did *not* resolve to update the specification in that manner; that's just > fantasai's most recent proposal, which we determined during the ftf was > insufficient. According to <http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-224>, we > accepted my proposal. > I knew in responding to so many of these I was going to get one or two of the incorrect. Thanks for catching my mistake. You are correct it does say accept your proposal. -- Thanks, Arron Eicholz
Received on Tuesday, 15 March 2011 00:11:40 UTC