W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > March 2012

Re: CSS3 Images issues needing WG review

From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2012 17:16:46 -0800
Message-Id: <B4235306-52C5-499B-97A7-8CFFEB0A198A@gmail.com>
Cc: Øyvind Stenhaug <oyvinds@opera.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>

On Mar 1, 2012, at 10:42 AM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 9:39 AM, Øyvind Stenhaug <oyvinds@opera.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 01 Mar 2012 01:34:51 +0100, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Issue 3 - Use of 'bounding box' is undefined, should be 'border box'
>>> =======
>>> We need a quick review of the definition of "decorated bounding box"
>>> in the spec to make sure it's sane.  For CSS, it's the border image
>>> area (actually, the smallest rectangle containing the border image
>>> areas of every fragment the box may be split into).  For SVG, it's the
>>> "decorated bounding box", defined in SVG Tiny, which is the smallest
>>> rectangle containing both the geometry and the stroke.
>> I suppose the edges of the decorated bounding box for CSS must be vertically
>> and horizontally aligned?
> Yes.  I can clarify that to be an "axis-aligned rectangle".
>> And the part about transforms being "ignored when
>> rendering the element as an image" should also apply when determining the
>> d.b.b.?
>> Not a nitpick this time, I'm not entirely sure how to interpret this part
>> w.r.t. transforms. Nobody implements per spec yet?
> Yeah, the intent is that it's based on the box's geometry + border
> image area (similar to how SVG's DBB is the geometry + stroke).
> Children, even if they're transformed or positioned outside the box,
> don't affect this calculation.

If you are including the border image, why not also include the box-shadow? It is a decoration too. 
Received on Friday, 2 March 2012 01:17:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:13 UTC