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

Re: [css3-images] 'image-fit/position' alias for 'object-fit/position' not needed

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 14:19:42 -0800
Message-ID: <AANLkTikXRrQ1djX69Dy3GELp=p6DDKWc+8dE07z4Dsy+@mail.gmail.com>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Cc: Leif Arne Storset <lstorset@opera.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 2:18 PM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:
> On 01/27/2011 09:14 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 3:47 AM, Leif Arne Storset<lstorset@opera.com>
>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> The 'object-fit' and 'object-position' properties ask:
>>>
>>> # Do we need to allow browsers to alias ‘image-position’
>>> # and ‘image-fit’ (the old names for these properties)
>>> # to these properties? Does any browser actually need
>>> # to do so?
>>>
>>> I believe only Opera has implemented these, and they were released with
>>> the
>>> 'object-' names from the beginning. Besides, they were prefixed, so I
>>> don't
>>> think it would matter anyway.
>>
>> Removed, thanks for the clarification!
>
> They weren't there for browser implementations, Tab, they
> were there for printer implementations. I don't think you
> should have removed that.

Were they unprefixed in printers?

~TJ
Received on Thursday, 27 January 2011 22:20:35 GMT

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