W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2011

Re: [css3-images] object-* at-risk (was: Resolving on gradient issues)

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 12:26:59 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDA+5MeThtc+Tg+g2kpxg_TL196MQds_anpzovjiWSEw2w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Leif Arne Storset <lstorset@opera.com>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 3:01 AM, Leif Arne Storset <lstorset@opera.com> wrote:
> Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> skreiv Wed, 03 Aug 2011 04:00:31 +0200
>
>> I've finished the CSS3 Images edits that came from f2f decisions
>> today.  In particular, I've made the following substantive changes:
>
> [snip]
>
>> 2. Marked the element() function and object-* properties as at-risk.
>
> Note that object-* has two implementations (Opera and HP). I don't currently
> have access to the HP impl, but I believe 'object-position' is
> interoperable, and 'object-fit' is interoperable for the 'fill', 'contain'
> and 'cover' values. Given that, would it be enough to cease marking the two
> entire properties as at-risk?
>
> Of course, we also implement the 'none' value (which HP may or may not
> implement) and the 'auto' value (which has been rejected by the WG). AFAIK
> no-one implements 'scale-down' yet. It would be reasonable to mark 'none'
> and 'scale-down' as at-risk, if marking parts of a property at-risk is a
> done thing.

That seems reasonable.

Everyone else, does it seem okay to make the object-* properties not
at-risk, and only mark the "none" and "scale-down" values of
object-fit as at-risk?

~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 3 August 2011 19:27:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:43 GMT