W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2009

Re: 'image-fit' vs preserveAspectRatio

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 11:51:29 -0700
Message-ID: <49EE15B1.6000701@inkedblade.net>
To: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
CC: "Grant, Melinda" <melinda.grant@hp.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, "www-svg@w3.org" <www-svg@w3.org>
Erik Dahlström wrote:
>>> Previously, the CSS spec had the same keywords as SVG. What's
>>> the reason for the change?
>> The keywords were initially taken from SMIL 1.0, but it was felt that 
>> the functionality was different enough that we should use different 
>> names to prevent confusion.  Also, the CSS group felt that the 
>> previous keywords weren't as descriptive as they could be.
> The SVG WG seemed to be ok with a new property, and could adopt it for 
> use in SVG too, but 'image-fit' wasn't seen as a general enough name.
> See http://www.w3.org/2009/03/16-svg-minutes.html#item06

Actually, the original name in the CSS draft was copied from SMIL
and was 'fit', not 'preserveAspectRatio'. The CSSWG felt 'fit'
was too general--since in CSS it only applies to replaced elements,
and not to any other boxes--and decided to rename it 'image-fit'.
I can't speak for the WG, but I think we'd be open to renaming it
to align better with SVG. However, I don't think 'aspect-ratio'
is a good name because this property doesn't give an aspect ratio.

I'm not coming up with any good alternatives here, just
   fit-scaling: fill | cover | contain
   fit-position: <background-position>
If you've got any other ideas throw them in...

Received on Tuesday, 21 April 2009 18:52:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:26 UTC