- From: Grant, Melinda <melinda.grant@hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 22:54:13 +0000
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
- CC: Dean Jackson <dino@apple.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Anne said: > On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 20:29:50 +0100, Philip Jägenstedt > <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, Melinda
Received on Tuesday, 9 December 2008 22:55:51 UTC