W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > December 2008

RE: scaling behavior of HTML <img>/<video> and SVG preserveAspectRatio

From: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 20:29:50 +0100
To: "Grant, Melinda" <melinda.grant@hp.com>
Cc: Dean Jackson <dino@apple.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1228332590.9186.228.camel@localhost>

I see that they've been made image properties image-fit and
image-position. Even though it isn't a great stretch to call video an
image (a moving one), wouldn't these properties apply to all replaced
content with an intrinsic size? If so, wouldn't content-orientation,
content-fit and content-position be more fitting names?


On Wed, 2008-12-03 at 18:57 +0000, Grant, Melinda wrote:
> Dean said:
> > Aside: I'm not sure why these are in Paged Media. They seem
> > applicable to continuous media too.
> Yes, as indicated by their 'Applies to' field.
> They're there because (1) the print implementations were the first to implement these; and (2) because we wanted them in a module that could progress rapidly to REC once CSS 2.1 is done. They certainly could be moved if there is a better place to put them...
> These properties have been changed significantly (but not in ways that diminish their applicability here) so there will be another Last Call on this-- see http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-page/#img-fit for the latest.
> Best wishes,
> Melinda
Philip Jägenstedt
Opera Software
Received on Wednesday, 3 December 2008 19:30:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:42 UTC