- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 03:08:06 -0800
- To: www-style@w3.org
On 02/22/2012 08:00 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 3:00 AM, Leif Arne Storset<lstorset@opera.com> wrote: >> Ah, didn't realize that was a rejection (rather than a postponement). >> >> I disagree (i. e. agree that it is out of scope). You're right that they are >> not redundant with each other, but the first definition is redundant with >> the now more robust CSS 2.1 section 10.4. >> >> I can live with it, though, since it's not incorrect, and I've already >> implemented and understand what it's talking about. :) I do think it is very >> confusing for first-time readers. >> >> (Just now I realized that the introduction also mentions this behavior: >> "[The property] also enables scaling a replaced element up to a specified >> maximum size or down to a specified minimum size while preserving its aspect >> ratio.". That should also have been deleted in my change proposal.) >> >> If you do keep it (and it's not too late in the process for editorial >> changes!), I would suggest adding a reference to CSS 2.1 section 10.4, where >> element sizing is defined more explicitly. That way, first-time readers will >> get that this part of the definition deals with something different than the >> other part. Such as: >> >> | 'contain' >> … >> >> | This will proportionally scale the used width and height up to the >> | given maximum constraints. >> + (See [CSS21] section 10.4 for more information on min/max constraints.) >> >> | >> | Set the concrete object size to the largest width and height that has >> … >> >> and similarly for 'cover'. > > Fantasai, since you're the one of us who argued for this behavior, can > you confirm whether or not Leif is right, and the statement in Images > is redundant with the text from 2.1? The special behavior implied by > those values was subtle enough that I didn't catch it until you > pointed it out, so I'm not confident whether I'll correctly recognize > what 2.1 says on the matter either. I'm having trouble loading it all in my brain in order to explain it, but IIRC it's sufficiently explained here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011May/0638.html ~fantasai
Received on Wednesday, 29 February 2012 11:08:45 UTC