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

Re: image-fit and image-position renamed?

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 12:55:46 -0500
Message-ID: <dd0fbad0909221055w63829ac5h2b77cf18fdcc2a00@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Cc: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, www-style@w3.org
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sep 22, 2009, at 8:14 AM, Håkon Wium Lie wrote:
>
>> I suggest that we either (1) stick to the current "image" names but
>> specify that this can apply to <video> as well, or that we (2) rename
>> these to 'content-fit' and 'content-position'.
>>
>> My preference would be (2).
>
> Of those two choices, I prefer the first. Video is a series of images, so it
> is not that hard to think of 'image-*' as something that would apply to
> video too. But "content" implies so much more (such as including text), and
> so I don't think that name is as clear.

replaced-fit/-position?

It should apply to any replaced element with an intrinsic aspect ratio
or size (respectively).

~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 22 September 2009 17:56:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:21 GMT