- From: Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@exyr.org>
- Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 14:49:41 +0000
- To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- CC: www-style@w3.org
On 13/11/14 19:32, L. David Baron wrote: > On Thursday 2014-11-13 14:58 +0000, Simon Sapin wrote: >> 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 think that's right in general: we want the concept of intrinsic > size not to be affected by height, width, etc., properties, so that > we can have values of those properties that specify the intrinsic > size. > > There's still a concept that css-sizing calls the min/max-content > size contribution that should be affected by these. I was not aware of this difference. How does it relate to what css-sizing calls the {min,max}-content contribution? Whatever the terminology, I don’t see the specified size of images being accounted for anywhere in the current css-sizing ED. >> 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'/>"> > > In Gecko, the image has an intrinsic width of 1000px. What differs > with and without the width:50px is its intrinsic width contribution > to its parent: the presence of width: 50% makes that 0 for > min-width only, since the min-content contribution for any element > with a percentage width is 0. Interesting. That last part doesn’t seem to be specified in css-sizing. -- Simon Sapin
Received on Friday, 14 November 2014 14:50:10 UTC