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

On 03/21/2012 02:20 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 2:47 AM, fantasai<>  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.


Received on Thursday, 22 March 2012 00:23:33 UTC