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 13:10:37 -0500
Message-ID: <dd0fbad0909221110m18083869p8ad054122706cd54@mail.gmail.com>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Cc: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>, Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, www-style@w3.org
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 1:05 PM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:
> Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>>
>> 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).
>
> The thing is, for SVG this would apply to the entire SVG image. It's
> not about replaced content for them.

Granted (though a document does act somewhat like a replaced element
in the browser itself).

~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 22 September 2009 18:12:06 GMT

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