W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2012

Re: [css3-images] object-fit at risk

From: Florian Rivoal <florianr@opera.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 15:11:06 +0100
To: www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.v9me0sbc4p7avi@eeeflorian>
On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 14:29:05 +0100, Leif Arne Storset <lstorset@opera.com>  
wrote:

> fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> skreiv Sun, 12 Feb 2012  
> 01:11:31 +0100
>
>>    dbaron: Are enough things marked as at-risk?
>>    dbaron: Do we have two impls of object-position and image-resolution?
>>            And the rest of object-fit?
>>    fantasai: We have two impls of image-resolution.
>>    florian: We have code for object-* in our tree, but I don't know the  
>> status.
> […]
>>    dbaron: I suggest we mark everything but gradients as at-risk.  I  
>> don't
>>            want any of the other features to hold up gradients.
>>    [several]: That's fine.
>>    RESOLVED: Mark everything in Images 3 as at-risk except gradients.
>
> I don't object to marking everything but gradients at risk in order to  
> speed the process. For the record, though:
>
> HP and Opera have implemented object-fit and object-position [0]. That  
> is why it was unmarked as at risk. 'scale-down' is still at risk,  
> however. I am uncertain about the status of 'none'.
>
> 0. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Aug/0076.html

There are multiple implementation, but I don't know if they have
been tested as interoperably matching the spec. Because there is a chance
that they are not yet that stable, marking the properties at risk allows
us to move them to the next level rather if they prove to be less stable
than gradients, which we do want to unprefix as soon as possible.

  - Florian
Received on Monday, 13 February 2012 14:07:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:50 GMT