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

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

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 10:37:52 +0100
To: Philip J├Ągenstedt <philipj@opera.com>, "Grant, Melinda" <melinda.grant@hp.com>
Cc: "Dean Jackson" <dino@apple.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.ulms1ev064w2qv@annevk-t60.oslo.opera.com>

On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 20:29:50 +0100, Philip J├Ągenstedt <philipj@opera.com>  
wrote:
> 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?

Yeah, for <video> image-* doesn't seem so appropriate.


Also, given that CSS transformations are pretty much guaranteed to be part  
of the CSS platform, do we really need image-orientation?


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Thursday, 4 December 2008 09:38:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:55:17 GMT