W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > October 2013

Re: [css-shapes] how to size and position <image>s

From: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 19:41:04 -0700
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CE85EB53.14108%stearns@adobe.com>
On 10/17/13 7:26 PM, "fantasai" <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:

>On 10/17/2013 11:02 AM, Alan Stearns wrote:
>> Tab Atkins wrote:
>>> Yeah, replaced elements actually don't *quite* use the Sizing
>>> Algorithm, unfortunately.  There's some annoying wrinkles that I don't
>>> remember at all, but fantasai should.
>>> But the default size of replaced elements is 300x150.
>> If that's the case, then perhaps instead of the Sizing Algorithm the
>> Shapes from Image section should say something like:
>> ---
>> Sizing and positioning the image a shape is derived from follows all of
>> the same rules that would apply if the image were the element's replaced
>> content.
>> ---
>Okay, now let's consider an element that contains text, but has a shape
>derived from an image. This means that the size of the image and what
>it's box would be is potentially very different from the size of the
>box resulting from sizing the text. That size is therefore mismatched,
>though well-defined. What is its position with respect to the actual

I would expect the top-left corner of the image would be in the top-left
corner of the content box. What would you suggest?

The basic case is a floated image where the shape is derived from that
image, where the shape and the image should be in perfect registration. I
think it would be fine to have a definition that fit that use case
exactly, and that also had a well-defined size and position for the case
you describe.


Received on Friday, 18 October 2013 02:41:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:36 UTC