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

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

From: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 15:30:11 -0700
To: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CE6F4719.308EF%stearns@adobe.com>
On 9/29/13 11:02 AM, "Dirk Schulze" <dschulze@adobe.com> wrote:

>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

>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



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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 23 January 2023 02:14:32 UTC