Re: [css-shapes] <image> intrinsic dimensions

On 9/29/13 11:02 AM, "Dirk Schulze" <dschulze@adobe.com> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>The specification allows to use images to calculate the shape outside.
>Some images do not have intrinsic dimensions. It is currently not
>specified which sizing algorithm should be used. CSS Images does define a
>default sizing algorithm [1] which should be sufficient enough to use
>IMO. I assume that the relevant object is the float.

Yes, thanks! I think this helps out in quite a few cases where we
otherwise would have a mismatch between the displayed image's size and the
shape drawn from the image data. I've added in a sentence to section 3.3
pointing to the whole Concrete Object Size Resolution section [1] as I
think we should be allowing for the cover and contain sizing steps as
well. 

>
>However, for <basic-shape>s the spec allows to use the 'box-sizing'
>property to define the rectangle that is used for percentage resolving.
>Do we want that for CSS Images too (which takes the padding box right now
>IIRC)? Maybe it is not worth it to discuss that for the first level and
>just referencing the default sizing algorithm is ok.

I would expect box-sizing to contribute to the specified size of the
element, so it would already be accounted for in the default sizing
algorithm.

Thanks,

Alan

[1] 
http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/CR-css3-images-20120417/#concrete-size-resolution

Received on Monday, 30 September 2013 22:30:39 UTC