- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 15:19:20 -0700
- To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 1:05 PM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote: > Section 5.1 (Object-Sizing Terminology) at > http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-images/#sizing-terms begins the > definition of "intrinsic dimensions" with the sentence: > # An object's intrinsic dimensions are its preferred, natural > # width, height, and aspect ratio, if they exist. > I don't know what "preferred, natural width, height, and aspect > ratio" means. Are "preferred" and "natural" synonyms, or are they > different things? Are they, in turn, synonyms for "intrinsic"? > This seems like unnecessary introduction of extra terms. Those aren't meant to be spec-relevant terms; this is a general introductory sentence. I can remove either "preferred" or "natural", but I don't know how to trim it further without saying something like "An object's intrinsic dimensions are its intrinsic dimensions.". I'm open to suggestions for better wording. > Then, later in the same definition, it says: > # If an object (such as an icon) has multiple sizes, then the > # largest size is taken as its intrinsic size. If it has multiple > # aspect ratios at that size, or has multiple aspect ratios and no > # size, then the aspect ratio closest to the aspect ratio of the > # default object size is used. > It seems this assumes a definition of largest for sizes. Does it > mean the size with the largest area, or the size with the largest > width/height/(larger of width or height)/(smaller of width or > height)? I'd guess it means area, but it's not clear, and it should > be. Hm, that text is definitely unclear; there's no intrinsic ordering of "size". fantasai, you wrote that text originally; what did you mean to say in that sentence? > In the definition of "concrete object size", it says: > # The concrete object size is the result of transforming an > # object's intrinsic dimensions into a concrete size using its > # specified size and default object size. > It seems to me that the concrete object size is a value computed > from three inputs (intrinsic dimensions, specified size, and default > object size). I don't see why it's a transformation of the first in > particular. As far as I can tell, that's already what that sentence is saying. > In the definition of "default object size", it says: > # The following informative list summarizes ... > I think this list may need to be normative; it's not clear to me > that behavior of new features is fully define if it's not. However, > it could probably state explicitly that it's not intended to > contradict anything in CSS 2.1 or css3-backgrounds. I agree it needs to be normative. fantasai recently changed it to informative, but I've changed it back. I've also added the note you suggested. ~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 14 March 2012 22:20:07 UTC