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 16:19:59 -0800
Message-ID: <AANLkTikKTk6qFzqi=D+-8Ajurm=To87fEzephgqgUp0L@mail.gmail.com>
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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:36 GMT