[css3-images] interaction of parts of the definitions of object sizing

http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-images/#default-sizing (5.3, Default
Concrete Object Size Resolution) has a list with three cases.  The
three cases would be exhaustive if the third one didn't have the
wording "and has no additional constraints".  It's not clear to me
why this wording is present only in the third case; additional
constraints such as min-width and max-width can affect the results
of the first two cases as well.  It seems like it would be better to
define all cases and then say what overrides that definition.  It's
not at all clear to me that the interaction of these rules with
things like min-width and max-width is defined correctly.

It also seems a little bothersome that these rules are then
overridden for the most important case by the following section
(5.4, Sizing Objects: the โ€˜object-fitโ€™ property).  Perhaps section
5.3 should be split into two sections:
 (a) the default sizing algorithm
 (b) the definition of how the concrete object size is found for
     things other than replaced elements (simply referencing that

Then section 5.4 on 'object-fit' can become a parallel to (b) and
define how the algorithm is used for replaced elements, which also
involves defining how it interacts with min-width and max-width
(citing CSS 2.1, sections 10.4 and 10.7).

It's also not clear to me why the influence of background-repeat:
round on background-size isn't just already taken into account in
the definition of "specified width".


๐„ž   L. David Baron                         http://dbaron.org/   ๐„‚
๐„ข   Mozilla                           http://www.mozilla.org/   ๐„‚

Received on Wednesday, 14 March 2012 20:58:46 UTC