10091 2010-07-05 21:00:51 +0000 As far as I can tell, nothing specifies what the intrinsic width/height/ratio for iframes should be. You'd assume it's the height/width/ratio of the document, but of course that's wrong unless the iframe is seamless. 2010-10-04 13:58:38 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified HTML WG pre-LC1 HTML5 spec (editor: Ian Hickson) unspecified Other other CLOSED WONTFIX http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#embedded-content-2 P3 normal --- 1 contributor ian ayg hsivonen ian mike public-html-admin public-html-wg-issue-tracking public-html-bugzilla oldest_to_newest 36609 0 contributor 2010-07-05 21:00:51 +0000 Section: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#embedded-content-2 Comment: As far as I can tell, nothing specifies what the intrinsic width/height/ratio for iframes should be. You'd assume it's the height/width/ratio of the document, but of course that's wrong unless the iframe is seamless. Posted from: 68.175.61.233 36615 1 hsivonen 2010-07-06 07:12:11 +0000 IIRC, CSS specifies this. 36624 2 ayg 2010-07-06 10:13:38 +0000 I don't see the string "iframe" anywhere in CSS 2.1: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/css2.txt 36641 3 hsivonen 2010-07-06 19:05:46 +0000 " Otherwise, if 'width' has a computed value of 'auto', but none of the conditions above are met, then the used value of 'width' becomes 300px. If 300px is too wide to fit the device, UAs should use the width of the largest rectangle that has a 2:1 ratio and fits the device instead. " " Otherwise, if 'height' has a computed value of 'auto', but none of the conditions above are met, then the used value of 'height' must be set to the height of the largest rectangle that has a 2:1 ratio, has a height not greater than 150px, and has a width not greater than the device width. " So 300px by 150px (or smaller if that doesn't fit). 36642 4 ayg 2010-07-06 19:07:38 +0000 That applies to inline replaced elements that have no intrinsic height, width, or ratio. What spec says that iframes have no intrinsic height, width, or ratio? 38229 5 ian 2010-08-30 17:57:25 +0000 EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document: http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html Status: Rejected Change Description: no spec change Rationale: The same spec that says they have no intrinsic colour, no wife, and no US tax code: it's implied by the fact that nothing says they _do_ have any. 38232 6 ayg 2010-08-30 17:58:51 +0000 Hmm. Okay, I'll buy that. 38233 7 contributor 2010-08-30 17:58:55 +0000 Checked in as WHATWG revision r5395. Check-in comment: typo http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=5394&to=5395