- From: Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu <kanghaol@oupeng.com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 02:13:51 +0800
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Morten Stenshorne <mstensho@opera.com>
- CC: WWW Style <www-style@w3.org>
(2013/10/16 1:46), Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 10:43 AM, Morten Stenshorne <mstensho@opera.com> wrote: >> "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> writes: >> Are there similar problems in other specs, and are there any solutions >> out there already that can be of inspiration? > > Yes, there are a number of places where the natural range for some > value is open, and we've patched it into being closed. If the error > preventing me from editting the wiki is fixed, I'll have a nice > write-up with these solutions. > > The three solutions we've used are: > > 1. define a minimum size, and clamp things that are within the > boundary but less than the minimum. Which CSS property does this? > 2. find the limit behavior, and say that below a ua-specific limit, > it's just that limit behavior. (Repeating gradients do this.) > 3. define a completely different behavior for the boundary value > itself. (background-size/repeat do this.) 2. makes the most sense to me and I wonder why we didn't do the average color thing for 'background-size: 0'. I am inclined to think we should do 2. here too, even if it might be arbitrarily slow (is that the concern here?). Or we can as well just say 'column-width: 0' has to be valid but the behaivor is implementation-defined. Authors should be able to do whatever he/she wants in 1px x 1px and scale it up with CSS transform without seeing quantum effects. Cheers, Kenny -- Web Specialist, Opera Sphinx Game Force, Oupeng Browser, Beijing Try Oupeng: http://www.oupeng.com/
Received on Tuesday, 15 October 2013 18:14:21 UTC