- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 18:06:48 -0800
- To: Leif Arne Storset <lstorset@opera.com>
- Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 4:12 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 7:07 AM, Leif Arne Storset <lstorset@opera.com> wrote: >> In section 5.4, both 'contain' and 'cover' seem to be defined twice. For >> example, 'contain' says >> >> | Determine the used ‘height’ and ‘width’ of the element as usual, except: >> | If both ‘height’ and ‘width’ are ‘auto’, and the used value of at least >> | one of ‘max-width’ and ‘max-height’ is not ‘none’, then compute the >> | element's used width and used height as though the intrinsic dimensions >> | of the contents were infinitely large numbers whose ratio is the actual >> | intrinsic ratio of the contents. This will proportionally scale the used >> | width and height up to the given maximum constraints. >> | >> | Set the concrete object size to the largest width and height that has >> | the same aspect ratio as the object's intrinsic aspect ratio, and >> | additionally has neither width nor height larger than the replaced >> | element's used width and height, respectively. >> >> These seem redundant to me. I suspect the first definition, written in >> 2007, hails from a time when '(max|min)-(width|height)' were underdefined >> in level 2, and "as usual" wasn't sufficient. [0] Determining used values >> for 'width' and 'height' seems out of scope for this property and this >> spec, as implied by the introduction to 5.4: >> >> | The ‘object-fit’ property specifies how the contents of a replaced >> | element should be scaled relative to the box established by its used >> | height and width. >> >> I could be wrong: my head is spinning from trying to calculate >> some examples according to both the specs. If I am wrong, and some >> situation does require all the infinity math, I feel we could phrase it >> more simply and/or state the covered cases more clearly. >> >> My primary suggestion, however, is to delete the first paragraph, both >> under 'contain' and 'cover', so that both consist only of a paragraph >> starting with "Set the concrete object size…". >> >> [0] At the moment I can't find old versions of CSS 2.1, but CSS 2 does not >> define it as well as CSS 2.1. >> CSS 2: >> http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-CSS2-20080411/visudet.html#min-max-widths >> CSS 2.1: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visudet.html#min-max-widths > > Nope, it's not redundant. Those first paragraphs have the effect of > forcing the size of the element itself to the min/max constraint. > > I agree that this is out-of-scope for this property. Fantasai does not. Since I rejected this feedback, could you indicate whether you're okay with this resolution or not, Leif? This is necessary for the Disposition of Comments. ~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 22 February 2012 02:07:39 UTC