- From: Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@exyr.org>
- Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 14:58:52 +0000
- To: www-style@w3.org
The "Intrinsic Sizes of Replaced Elements" section of the ED currently reads: http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-sizing/#replaced-intrinsic > For replaced elements, the min-content size and max-content size are > equivalent and correspond to the appropriate dimension of the > concrete object size returned by the default sizing algorithm > [CSS3-IMAGES] of the element, calculated with an unconstrained > specified size. css-images-3 defines "specified size" as given (for replaced elements) by the 'width' and 'height' properties. So css-sizing says to ignore these properties for the intrinsic size of an image? That sounds wrong. I was looking for what should happen to images with the percentage specified width. A possible solution would be to do like for blocks: resolve the percentage if it is definite, or ignore it otherwise. However, browsers seem to interoperably do something more complicated, at least when tables are involved, and I don’t know what the algorithm is here. Compare the document below with and without the style="width: 50%". (The behavior without is explained by tables always getting at least their min-content size, even when the specified size is smaller, per "shrink-to-fit".) <table style="width: 200px"> <td style="border: solid"> <img style="width: 50%" src="data:image/svg+xml,<svg width='1000' xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'/>"> Context: https://github.com/Kozea/WeasyPrint/issues/227 -- Simon Sapin
Received on Thursday, 13 November 2014 14:59:23 UTC