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

Re: [css3] "keep aspect ratio" feature

From: Brad Kemper <brkemper.comcast@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 12:57:09 -0800
Message-Id: <C3D7E334-2B10-4661-B4F0-6ECFAF4D08A7@gmail.com>
To: Christoph Päper <christoph.paeper@crissov.de>
Cc: www-style <www-style@w3.org>

The idea is interesting, but by redefining what "auto" width or height  
mean in the presense of an explicit ratio, don't you proclude the  
ability to have a flexible width with a height that is proportional to  
that width? Or does the new meaning of "auto" only apply to height?

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 24, 2008, at 12:26 PM, Christoph Päper <christoph.paeper@crissov.d 
e> wrote:

>
> Andrew Fedoniouk:
>> Time to time I am getting feature request to provide "keep aspect  
>> ratio" functionality in CSS.
>>
>> To declare function 'width(NN%)' that can be used as a value of  
>> height, min-height, max-height CSS attributes.
>>
>> #my-golden-ratio {
>>  width: 30%;
>>  height: width(62%);
>> }
>
> Why would you make either width or height depend on the other when  
> you really want to provide their ratio (or area, i.e. either the  
> result of their division or their multiplication)?
>
>  foo {
>    ratio: calc(4/3); /* ignored if contradicting explicit width/ 
> height,
>                         because it is not needed then */
>    width: 4cm;
>    height: auto; /* -> 3cm */
>  }
>
>  foo {
>    area: 12cm; /* _square_ centimetres actually, but we only need  
> the scale,
>                   the power is encoded in the property */
>    width: 4cm;
>    height: auto; /* -> 3cm */
>  }
>
Received on Monday, 24 November 2008 20:58:07 GMT

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