Re: [css3-images] Comments on object sizing terminology

On Thursday 2012-03-15 12:29 -0700, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> >> > 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.
> >
> > I'm just saying that the wording appears to imply that one of the
> > inputs is somehow different in character from the other two.  I
> > think the wording should instead imply that the concrete object size
> > is a function of three inputs and not put those inputs into two
> > categories.
> How about this?
> # The <i>concrete object size</i> is the result of combining an
> object's <i>intrinsic dimensions</i> and <i>specified size</i> with
> the <i>default object size</i> of the context it's used in, producing
> a rectangle with a definite width and height.

Seems good, although I'm not crazy about the use of "definite".
(Perhaps "definite width and height" could be "width and height that
are absolute lengths"?)  Perhaps some of the other uses of definite
could be replaced as well?

(My problem with "definite" is that it looks like a technical term
but doesn't actually appear to be one.)


𝄞   L. David Baron                  𝄂
𝄢   Mozilla                    𝄂

Received on Friday, 23 March 2012 00:30:48 UTC