Re: [css-backgrounds] border-image with an SVG resource that has no intrinsic size

[please don't top-post ]

On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 8:59 AM, Said Abou-Hallawa
<> wrote:
> I am really confused. How do you admit that the specs are not super clear on this and the rendering is "sometimes-slightly-weird-but-okay" and then you give such a strong opinion like that?
> If the specs are not super clear and the "sometimes-slightly-weird-but-okay" rendering is not defined anywhere, how can I differentiate between a bug in the implementation and an accepted and conforming rendering?

You can, for example, look at every single browser and how they agree
about the behavior in similar circumstances, as I said with "the
behavior in practice is clear".  The border-image behavior you talked
about breaks completely with the de facto behavior of backgrounds in
every browser, for example.

> If the specs are not super clear so why do not we fix it?

It's SVG's fault on that, unfortunately.  Our side is pretty well
specified.  SVG's side is technically specified, but it's hard to
parse out, which is the same as "not really specified" in practice.

> I think the decision to be made with the current state of the specs is the choice between:
> 1. Not really useful but expected results (Safari and FireFox)
> 2. Sometimes-slightly-weird-but-okay results (Chrome)
> I think the decision should not be easy and without having clear specs and without defining what “sometimes-slightly-weird-but-okay” means, no one should claim that one choice is 100% correct and the other is 100% wrong.

There's a single behavior that is consistent with the treatment of
SVGs-with-no-intrinsic-size-or-ratio in the other cases where you can
use them.  That's clearly the correct behavior, and it's what I
described.  (Chrome is also wrong in some cases, btw.)


Received on Wednesday, 19 August 2015 21:49:14 UTC