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

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 6:09 PM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:
> On 03/21/2012 05:46 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> 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
>> all.
>>
>> 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.
>> ^_^
>
>
> Actually, it does. Considering them to be replaced elements means that
> everything else about replaced element rendering (e.g. page-breaking
> behavior, sizing of SVG with aspect ratio and no size) applies to these
> images as well. If you treat them as something different, then everywhere
> we talk about replaced elements we have to remember to mention them
> specifically. And I am NOT OK with doing that. It's a good way to
> introduce errors.

I, um, didn't define anything special about the rendering of anything.
 This is about sizing.  Page-breaking is irrelevant.


> Like the error that's in the spec right now about how 'content'-specified
> SVG files are sized.

Could you elaborate? I have no idea what you're alluding to.

~TJ

Received on Thursday, 22 March 2012 01:19:10 UTC