Issue 4
URI: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2006Oct/0078
- Description:
- 'fit' unclear in various ways
The definition of the 'fit' property in [1] is unclear in the
following ways:
1. It should be clearer that it is describing the scaling of the
*contents* of the replaced element rather than changing the
replaced element's box (i.e., the used width and used height).
2. It should avoid the use of the term "containing box" when it
means the element's box. (It could easily be confused with
"containing block".)
3. It should avoid the use of "replaced object" where the standard
term is "replaced element".
- Proposal:
- By and large, accept the proposed changes. (Editorial clarifications.)
-
Resolution:
-
Accept
- State:
- Closed
Issue 6
URI:
http://www.w3.org/2002/02/mid/20061013035200.GA24767@ridley.dbaron.org;list=www-style
- Description:
- 'fit' doesn't apply to images distorted by min/max-width/height
- Proposal:
- Extend this property to apply when both 'width' and 'height' are 'auto' and min/max-width/height are used. Another way of saying this is, extend the property to provide the following additional use cases: preserving aspect ratio, scale a replaced element such that it is as large as possible within a given rectangular area; and similarly, preserving aspect ratio, scale a replaced element such that it is
at least as large as a given rectangular area.
-
Resolution:
-
After considerable discussion at the Nov 2006 f2f, the WG agreed to accept this
proposal.
- State:
- Closed
Issue 7
URI:
- Description:
- Alias for margin-box names
- Proposal:
-
== Aliases for boxes ==
Should
* bottom-right-corner
* bottom-left-corner
* top-right-corner
* top-left-corner
have duplicates as
* right-bottom-corner
* left-bottom-corner
* right-top-corner
* right-bottom-corner
- Discussion:
- The group feels that providing aliases does not necessarily lead to better usability; can't be done in all cases; and does not have general precedent.
-
Resolution:
-
Rejected
- State:
- Closed
Issue 8
URI:
- Description:
-
== Center and middle ==
- Proposal:
-
"Also, I personally consider middle as a one-dimension value while
center is a two-dimension value"...
Presumably, the request is to swap the terms 'center' and 'middle'.
- Discussion
- These terms have been in place a long time, and that's what implementations are using. Dictionaries define these terms interchangeably. We don't see a need to change names at this point.
-
Resolution:
-
Rejected
- State:
- Closed
Issue 9
URI:
- Description:
- Specification does not address 'how UA and CSS should work when it comes to
headers and footers'.
- Discussion:
- It is agreed that the headers/footers defined by Paged Media are subject to the
same cascading model as other CSS properties, and refer to the same headers and
footers as those currently accessible via user style dialogues. As the usual
cascading model applies, no spec changes are necessary.
-
Resolution:
-
Rejected
- State:
- Closed
Issue 10
URI:
- Description:
- 'image-orientation' property isn't Paged Media-specific.
- 'fit' property isn't Paged Media-specific.
- Proposal:
-
Resolution:
-
Not optimal, but pragmatic: these features were initially driven by the print
community, so make some sense there; and are wanted in the market sooner than we
can get there in 'Box'.; Rejected.
- State:
- Closed
Issue 11
URI:
- Description:
- Various editorial suggestions.
- Proposal:
- Accept editorial suggestions.
-
Resolution:
-
Accept
- State:
- Closed
Issue 12
URI:
- Description:
-
"Section 3.4.1:
This section lacks a normative reference for the definition of the
grammar that is being used here. I think it is a bad idea to mix
grammars as is done here. If EBNF would be used throughout this section,
the requirement
The value 'auto' may not be used as a page name and MUST be treated as
a syntax error.
would be unnecessary, it could be encoded in the grammar."
- Discussion:
- He's right that we don't define the grammar of our grammar. Bert doesn't think there's a formal reference for our syntax. It's a superset of YACC. But we use the same syntax in CSS2.1. The WG feels it's sufficient. If Bjorn wants to contribute a complete grammar, that would be great.
-
Resolution:
-
Rejected
- State:
- Closed
Issue 13
URI:
- Description:
-
"I think the "concatenating numbers" idiom to express the specificity is
a very poor one, I would prefer to see this expressed as an array."
- Proposal:
- Add wording from 2.1 "(in a number system with a
large base)"
-
Resolution:
-
Rejected; the idiom is the same as 2.1 and seems ok to the group.
- State:
- Closed
Issue 14
URI:
- Description:
- "Section 3.5:
I am worried about the list of properties here, I think it is not very
precise, it is difficult to map this to CSS3 properties instead, and the
specification would have to be updated whenever new properties should
apply to the concepts defined herein."
- Discussion:
- We want new CSS3 properties to apply to the page context without having to
rev the specification, but we also want the detail for exactly which properties
apply.; Agreed to create an appendix with the detailed list for CSS2.1
features.
-
Resolution:
-
Accepted
- State:
- Closed
Issue 15
URI:
- Description:
- 'fit' not generic enough, and doesn't allow scaling relative to
intrinsic size.
- Proposal:
- ..."replace fit with something like replaced-size or scale with a syntax like background-size."
OR
-
..."replace 'none' with <percentage>, where <percentage> displays the image at a percentage
of its intrinsic size"
-
Resolution:
-
The WG feels that 'fit'/'image-scaling' addresses use cases where the image is scaled in various
ways to fit a destination rectangle, and that it would be inappropriate
overloading to add a use case to scale the image relative to the source size.;
that would more suitably be another property. Rejected.
- State:
- Closed
Issue 17
URI:
- Description:
- What is the use case for 'fit: none;'?
- Proposal:
- Remove 'none'/'hidden' from 'fit'/'image-scaling'
-
Resolution:
-
The WG felt that there wasn't a compelling use case for the 'none'/'hidden'
value, and, given the concern, decided to remove this value. Accepted.
- State:
- Closed
Issue 19
URI:
- Description:
- 'widows' and 'orphans' should talk about block level elements rather than
paragraphs.
- Proposal:
- Editorial change accepted. The following text has been incorporated into the 23 Mar 2007 draft:
The 'orphans' property specifies the minimum number of line boxes in a block element that MUST be left at the bottom of a page. The 'widows' property specifies the minimum number of line boxes of a block element that MUST be left at the top of a page.
-
Resolution:
-
Accept
- State:
- Closed
Issue 21
URI:
- Description:
- Does terming ':first', ':left', etc. as 'page selectors' cause confusion?
Should they be called 'page descriptors' or...?
- Proposal:
- Rename 'page selectors' to 'page descriptors' or some such...
-
Resolution:
-
The WG felt that no change was needed.
- State:
- Closed
Issue 22
URI:
- Description:
- What does "properties that can be used in the page context" mean?; Are
other properties invalid or just ignored?
- Discussion:
- The WG wants to keep the door open for new CSS3 properties to apply in the page context (so we don't want to say that other properties make the document invalid or even that they are to be ignored); but we need to deal with properties that make no sense in the page context as well (so we can't say that all properties apply). The WG agreed to say that behavior for properties other than those listed is explicitly not defined.
-
Resolution:
-
Accepted
- State:
- Closed
Issue
URI:
- Description:
- Proposal:
-
Resolution:
-
=WG Discuss=
- State:
- Open
Issue X
URI:
- Description:
- Proposal:
-
Resolution:
-
=WG Discuss=
- State:
- Open