- From: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
- Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 16:28:04 -0800
- To: "Grant, Melinda" <melinda.grant@hp.com>
- CC: Dean Jackson <dino@apple.com>, Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
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... > This argumentation sounds really weak I would say. So if someone needs to push through some attribute it is a matter of inclusion it in module that comes first and is not so visible. Really this http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-page/#img-fit looks like a design hack. What if someone needs the same type of image rendering but for the background image? Say background-repeat: fill; for example? And how to define url for the image in CSS? There are also quite useful background-*** image attributes than also make sense for the foreground image. Why only these two was chosen? Probably it is better to define the same set of attributes but for the [foreground]image ? Like image-source, image-repeat, image-position, image-attachment, image-position, image-clip, image-origin, image-size. And so to expand these attributes for all elements. That will make the set complete and very useful. -- Andrew Fedoniouk. http://terrainformatica.com <http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-page/#img-fit> > 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 > > >
Received on Friday, 5 December 2008 00:28:50 UTC