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

On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 2:49 PM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote:
> Where the image is all center fill (border-image-slice is 0), since it is
> using initial border-image-width (which is the border width), then the image
> bounds should fill the padding-box (the border widths are using zero of the
> image). Where there is border-image-slice of 20, then the borders are filled
> with 20 "vector coordinates" (px in this case) of the image, according to
> the spec.
>
> According to the images spec, since the svg  element has no intrinsic size,
> its concrete object size is determined by the region it is filling. It is
> the same as if that region was the size of a window the svg was viewed in by
> itself.
>
> So, I don't understand why safari and chrome are not drawing the green box
> in columns 1 and 3 of the example, or why the green box is shrunk is shrunk
> in the second column of the second row, since that green box does have have
> fixed dimensions. When I view the SVG by itself in a window, it first change
> size when I resize the window. Firefox seems to have all those as I'd
> expect.

Yup, the entire first row, and the first two of the second row, are
all correct in Firefox per spec.  You have to chase some definitions
down, but it's not too complicated.

> But I can't explain why Firefox renders the last 2 example s of the 2nd row
> the way it does. I would expect the third one of the second row to be all
> green (20px sliced off edges of images and stretched into zero-width
> borders). I would expect the fourth one of the second row to be a red box
> with the green box (and the black border-box within it) in its upper left
> corner, as it is in Safari 8.06, since the border width and the slice width
> are the same.

Agreed, that's what I would expect as well.

~TJ

Received on Friday, 29 May 2015 22:39:58 UTC