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

Re: [css3-images] Reintroduce object-fit: none

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 09:35:33 -0800
Message-ID: <AANLkTinok6jKwJVYhibb-UK5pma39Z76oB1u6tQvk=M9@mail.gmail.com>
To: Philip J├Ągenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
Cc: www-style@w3.org, Leif Arne Storset <lstorset@opera.com>, "Simon Pieters (zcorpan)" <simonp@opera.com>
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 7:46 AM, Philip J├Ągenstedt <philipj@opera.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 11:50:31 +0100, Leif Arne Storset <lstorset@opera.com>
> wrote:
>> I was asked recently whether and why 'object-fit: none' was removed from
>> the spec. Digging in the archives, it seems the proposal to keep/revive it
>> was forgotten amid other issues. So this is a request to re-introduce
>> 'none' as a value for 'object-fit'. The definition would be "Render the
>> content at its intrinsic dimensions, overflowing if necessary."
>> The use case is easy centering or positioning images without scaling them.
>> Centering images vertically in a box can be a PITA today, especially if
>> you don't know the dimensions. With image-fit:none, it is super-easy. Have
>> a look at the attached demo (only supported in Opera 11, AFAIK).
>> (To avoid any confusion: There were objections to our proposal of another
>> value, 'object-fit: auto', because the proposal was that behavior depend
>> on content type. These issues do not affect the current proposal of
>> 'object-fit: none', since no content-type negotation takes place for
>> 'object-fit: none'.)
> In addition to this, I would also like to propose another state that is a
> mix of none and contain:
> * if the image fits in the content box, behave like "contain"
> * if the image does not fit in the content box, behave like "none"
> In short, it is "scale down only". The use case for this is for an image
> viewer where one wants to use the "best" fit, not either scale up small
> images or have large images overflow, which is the choices one has with just
> "contain" and "none".
> The exact syntax isn't very important. Either it is just a new value, as
> such...
> object-fit: scale-down; /* with another name, probably */
> ... or one makes object-fit and object-position take two comma-separated
> values, where the first one applies to "too small" images and the second
> applies to "too large" images, as such ...
> object-fit: none, contain;

These all sound acceptable to me.  If there's not any particular
objection to it, I'll make the change before I push to WD.

Received on Wednesday, 26 January 2011 17:36:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:42 UTC