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

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

From: Grant, Melinda <melinda.grant@hp.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 22:54:13 +0000
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Philip J├Ągenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
CC: Dean Jackson <dino@apple.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <763AE400FE923441B74861D534DF254955B40DD1AA@GVW0433EXB.americas.hpqcorp.net>

Anne said:
> 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.

Hmmm, I don't follow.  'Image' covers both still images and dynamic images, no?  On the other hand, 'content' would also include text and other things this property wouldn't apply to.  The group considered 're-fit' and 're-position' (short for 'replaced element'), but we rejected those because we wanted to give authors more of a clue about what the property does.

Best wishes,

Received on Tuesday, 9 December 2008 22:55:51 UTC

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