- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 16:19:59 -0800
- To: Philip Jägenstedt <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 9:35 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 7:46 AM, Philip Jägenstedt <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." >> 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 */ > > 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. I've added the values to 'object-fit'. Please review! ~TJ
Received on Thursday, 27 January 2011 00:20:51 UTC