This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.

Bug 20192 - http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-images/#default-sizing means we can drop all mentions of 300x150 (here and elsewhere)
Summary: http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-images/#default-sizing means we can drop all men...
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: WHATWG
Classification: Unclassified
Component: HTML (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: Other other
: P3 normal
Target Milestone: Unsorted
Assignee: Ian 'Hixie' Hickson
QA Contact: contributor
URL: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/...
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2012-11-30 22:21 UTC by contributor
Modified: 2013-06-07 21:26 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

See Also:

Attachments

Description contributor 2012-11-30 22:21:03 UTC 
Specification: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/
Multipage: http://www.whatwg.org/C#the-video-element
Complete: http://www.whatwg.org/c#the-video-element

Comment:
http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-images/#default-sizing means we can drop all
mentions of 300x150 (here and elsewhere)

Posted from: 76.102.14.57
User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_8_2) AppleWebKit/537.11 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/23.0.1271.95 Safari/537.11
Comment 1 Ian 'Hixie' Hickson 2013-02-12 22:20:35 UTC 
Where does the value "300" end up if we do this?
Comment 2 Tab Atkins Jr. 2013-02-13 18:45:54 UTC 
You do still need to define the 300x150 "default object size" in HTML as applying to the sizing of images/etc.
Comment 3 Ian 'Hixie' Hickson 2013-02-13 22:40:40 UTC 
Ah. Then I don't understand what this bug is asking for. Can you elaborate? (assuming you are the one who filed it)
Comment 4 Tab Atkins Jr. 2013-02-13 23:05:26 UTC 
I did not file it, no.
Comment 5 Simon Pieters 2013-03-27 13:53:02 UTC 
I didn't file it either, but there's a difference between what the current spec says and if it were to say that the "default object size" is 300x150 for <video>.

http://software.hixie.ch/utilities/js/live-dom-viewer/saved/2184

Opera and current spec: 300px

Chrome, Firefox, IE9 and "default object size": 600px

I suggest we change the spec to match implementation majority and hook in to the CSS spec with "default object size".
Comment 6 Ian 'Hixie' Hickson 2013-05-04 00:20:37 UTC 
I don't really understand what it means to define a "default object size" or where this would happen. I like the idea of aligning with implementations, I'm just not sure what this would entail in terms of spec edits. Can you elaborate?
Comment 7 Simon Pieters 2013-05-06 13:00:09 UTC 
For <video>, change

[[
The intrinsic width of a video element's playback area is the intrinsic width of the poster frame, if that is available and the element currently represents its poster frame; otherwise, it is the intrinsic width of the video resource, if that is available; otherwise it is 300 CSS pixels.

The intrinsic height of a video element's playback area is the intrinsic height of the poster frame, if that is available and the element currently represents its poster frame; otherwise it is the intrinsic height of the video resource, if that is available; otherwise it is 150 CSS pixels.
]]

to

[[
The intrinsic width of a video element's playback area is the intrinsic width of the poster frame, if that is available and the element currently represents its poster frame; otherwise, it is the intrinsic width of the video resource, if that is available; otherwise it is missing.

The intrinsic height of a video element's playback area is the intrinsic height of the poster frame, if that is available and the element currently represents its poster frame; otherwise it is the intrinsic height of the video resource, if that is available; otherwise it is missing.

The default object size [CSSIMAGES] is 300 CSS pixels wide and 150 CSS pixels high.
]]
Comment 8 Ian 'Hixie' Hickson 2013-06-07 21:25:13 UTC 
Thanks.

I looked around in the spec for other places where I defined intrinsic dimensions in that way, but couldn't find any. Feel free to open new bugs if there are some I missed.
Comment 9 contributor 2013-06-07 21:26:18 UTC 
Checked in as WHATWG revision r7935.
Check-in comment: Coordinate with CSS Images better
http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=7934&to=7935