- From: Leif Arne Storset <lstorset@opera.com>
- Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2013 17:11:44 +0200
- To: "Nick Cameron" <nick.r.cameron@gmail.com>, "Simon Sapin" <simon.sapin@exyr.org>
- Cc: "www-style list" <www-style@w3.org>
On Fri, 28 Jun 2013 10:12:30 +0200, Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@exyr.org> wrote: > Le 27/06/2013 05:02, Nick Cameron a écrit : >> The css-lists spec does not (as far as I can see) say anything about the >> size of images used for the list-style-image property. It probably >> should, but I don't have a proposal for what. >> >> Currently Firefox and Chrome use the size of the image referred to by >> the url if a url is used. Chrome looks like it uses 1em by 1em if a >> gradient is specified. I am currently implementing non-url images in >> Firefox, I'll probably use 1em by 1em for now unless anyone has a better >> suggestion.. > > Hi, > > The css-images spec defines how to determine the size of images. > (css-lists should probably refer to it.) Agreed > http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-images-3/#sizing > > This involves a 'specified size' (which is not set for anonymous images > in the 'content' property), the 'intrinsic size' of the image (gradients > don’t have any) and the 'default size' which depends on the context, 1em > by 1em for list markers. I think this should be defined explicitly in Lists. CSS Images 3 gets this length for the default object size by interpreting CSS 2.1 as defining it, but that reasoning is in an example and if Lists is to supersede CSS 2.1 it should state the default object size directly. -- Leif Arne Storset Opera Software > If you’re also implementing css-images, the above actually determines > the size of the "replaced CSS box". The size and position of the actual > image inside that depend on the 'object-fit' and 'object-position' > properties.
Received on Monday, 1 July 2013 15:12:21 UTC