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

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

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 17:46:43 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDD-aXjueWgj3nz7xRWo+ZJuyXut1TNsc55+HDxOyho4nw@mail.gmail.com>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 5:23 PM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:
> 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.

You can treat them like that, but it's silly to say "go look at this
complicated text and table from 2.1, and then think for a while about
whether declarations from the element apply to the boxes created by
'content'" when the answer is just that there are no constraints at

You're technically correct that they're just anonymous
replaced-element boxes (and thus, because they're anonymous, they
receive the default values for the relevant properties), but that
doesn't help much when I'm trying to write a simple and clear spec.

Received on Thursday, 22 March 2012 00:47:32 UTC

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