- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 12:44:36 -0800
- To: "Robert O'Callahan" <robert@ocallahan.org>
- Cc: www-style <www-style@w3.org>, Nicholas Cameron <ncameron@mozilla.com>
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 6:34 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 2:06 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org> >> wrote: >> > http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-images/#element-notation >> >> >> >> The function represents an image with its intrinsic size equal to the >> >> decorated bounding box of the referenced element >> > >> > >> > Giving element() an intrinsic size is actually super bad. It creates >> > almost >> > arbitrarily bad circular layout dependencies; e.g. any <li> element's >> > size >> > can now depend on the size of any other element in the document! >> > Detecting >> > and fixing the circularity isn't easy either, because you can combine >> > this >> > with existing dependencies to create cycles in all kinds of ways. Since >> > this >> > is mostly useless anyway, I propose specifying that element()s have no >> > intrinsic dimensions at all. >> >> Unless I'm misunderstanding, the spec is describing Mozilla's current >> behavior. This is illustrated by the first example in >> <https://hacks.mozilla.org/2010/08/mozelement/> (the one with white >> text on an orange background), and a few others in that page. > > Good point. Our implementation doesn't support list-style-image:element() > yet, and so element() intrinsic size currently can't affect layout in Gecko. > But we're adding that now and hitting this problem. So either we add a > parameter to the object-sizing algorithm to distinguish between the cases > where object sizing can affect layout and those where it can't, or we change > our behavior. I prefer the latter since object sizing is already too complex > for my taste. I'm okay with making this change, then. Just wanted to make sure I was reading the situation correctly. ^_^ (I see that you don't support it in 'content' either, presumably for the same reason.) ~TJ
Received on Monday, 3 February 2014 20:45:24 UTC