- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 00:08:32 -0700
- To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
So, my goals for this section of the spec are:
1. Minimize changes from LC so that we don't need another LC in order
to get adequate review. Ideally each change should be justifiable
as either a clarification or a straightforward error fix.
2. Don't introduce any errors. See #1.
3. Provide clear vocabulary and a simple reusable algorithm that future
specs can use (and tweak as necessary) to define their object sizing
rules with less repetition and therefore less errors.
4. Don't attempt to normatively redefine sizing algorithms that are
already normatively defined by existing specs. See #2. Also, that's
not the job of this spec. See #3.
Non-goals:
1. Defining an algorithm that handles all possible or used permutations of
object sizing.
2. Normatively redefining any other spec's sizing algorithms in order to
update its algorithms to use CSS3 Images terminology.
To that end I've made the following changes against last week's Editor's Draft:
5.1 Object-Sizing Terminology
http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-images/#sizing-terms
Reverted 'specified size' to its previous definition, which didn't try
to be exhaustive about all the possible ways size constraints can be
specified. (See goal #1 and non-goal #1.)
5.2 CSS⇋Object Negotiation
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2012Mar/att-0025/Overview.html#object-negotiation
No changes.
5.3 Concrete Object Size Resolution
http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-images/#concrete-size-resolution
Rewrote the introduction to this section into several paragraphs that
better explain what it's trying to do and how that relates to other
parts of the CSS specs.
Removed the concept of "rounding constraint" from the spec. It was not
part of the LC, and isn't necessary. (See goal #1 and non-goal #1.)
Addressed dbaron's comment about the "no specified size" case being
confusing as described here:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012Mar/0550.html
Shifted the cover and contain constraints out into their own section,
leaving the "default sizing algorithm" scoped to exactly what it was
scoped to during LC. (See goals #1 and #2.)
Made cover and contain use the exact wording from 'object-fit' instead
of new wording. The old wording wasn't wrong, and I remember getting
comments about it being unclear in previous renditions, so I don't want
to change it now without a good reason. (See goal #2.)
Removed "Default" from the section title and added subheads for both
the default sizing algorithm and the constraint sizing section.
5.4 Examples of CSS Object Sizing
http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-images/#object-sizing-examples
(This is the long list Tab added to redefined all the sizing algos in
CSS2.1 and CSS3 Backgrounds and Borders in CSS3 Images terms.)
I added direct links to the normative definitions of the sizing algos
and reduced the text by summarizing what was going on instead of trying
to be exhaustive about it.
I folded the new sections on 'content' and the contents of replaced
elements into just a 'replaced elements' section. I also corrected
that definition and explained its relationship to 'object-fit'.
I turned the whole list into an example so that it is non-normative.
See goals #2 and #4 and non-goal #2.
5.5. Sizing Objects: the ‘object-fit’ property
http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-images/#object-fit
Added some more human-readable text to the value definitions so that
authors can get a better sense of what the values mean without having
to understand the Concrete Object Size Resolution section.
Updated references to the contain/cover constraint sizing rules.
This reduces the changes to these sections between LC and CR to
- Rewrite of normative text to address dbaron's comment (described
above)
- An editorial rearrangement of the contain/cover definitions
- An improved introduction to the default sizing algorithm
- More detailed examples of the use of object sizing algorithms in
CSS2.1 and CSS3 Backgrounds and Borders
- Clarifications to the 'object-fit' value definitions that leave
the normative definitions unchanged (though now indirect via
reference rather than embedded inline) aside from Issue 24 [1]
[1] http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-images/issues-lc-2012#issue-24
~fantasai
Received on Tuesday, 27 March 2012 07:09:07 UTC