- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 17:23:05 -0700
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: www-style@w3.org
On 03/21/2012 02:20 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 2:47 AM, fantasai<fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote: >> On 03/15/2012 05:08 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >>> * I've split the old "replaced elements" case into three, since it was >>> wrong before. There's now a section for the 'content' property >>> (non-replaced, which is all you can do in 2.1), a section for replaced >>> elements (just calling out that they *dont'* use the sizing algorithm >>> here, and pointing to CSS2.1 sections 10.4 and 10.7 instead), and then >>> a section for the *contents* of replaced elements, hooking into >>> 'object-fit'. >> >> Images in generated content are replaced elements just as much as actual >> replaced elements are. They're effectively anonymous replaced elements, >> but they behave the same way. If this is not clear, it should be a CSS2.1 >> issue: we shouldn't be treating them as a separate case here. > > They're a different case because they don't have width/height or > max/min-width/height properties that apply to them and affect their > sizing. They're nice, simple constraint-less replaced elements. Thus > they absolutely deserve a separate case in the algorithm. That's the same as treating them as having min/max/width/height at their initial values. Which is exactly what happens if they're considered to be an anonymous replaced element Note, if they're something special and not a subset of replaced elements, then it means their sizing is not defined in 2.1. Which brings us back to having a 2.1 issue. So no, I don't buy your argument. They are replaced elements, same as any other replaced element. They just happen to be anonymous replaced elements. ~fantasai
Received on Thursday, 22 March 2012 00:23:33 UTC