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

Re: [css3-images] Probably editorial: 'object-fit' values 'cover' and 'contain' contain redundant definition

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 08:00:07 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDA_DS+vjipVfUFCiL7=yahasr_W1HpMbmUWZwQ8WWsBww@mail.gmail.com>
To: Leif Arne Storset <lstorset@opera.com>
Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 3:00 AM, Leif Arne Storset <lstorset@opera.com> wrote:
> Ah, didn't realize that was a rejection (rather than a postponement).
> I disagree (i. e. agree that it is out of scope). You're right that they are
> not redundant with each other, but the first definition is redundant with
> the now more robust CSS 2.1 section 10.4.
> I can live with it, though, since it's not incorrect, and I've already
> implemented and understand what it's talking about. :) I do think it is very
> confusing for first-time readers.
> (Just now I realized that the introduction also mentions this behavior:
> "[The property] also enables scaling a replaced element up to a specified
> maximum size or down to a specified minimum size while preserving its aspect
> ratio.". That should also have been deleted in my change proposal.)
> If you do keep it (and it's not too late in the process for editorial
> changes!), I would suggest adding a reference to CSS 2.1 section 10.4, where
> element sizing is defined more explicitly. That way, first-time readers will
> get that this part of the definition deals with something different than the
> other part. Such as:
> | 'contain'
> …
> | This will proportionally scale the used width and height up to the
> | given maximum constraints.
> + (See [CSS21] section 10.4 for more information on min/max constraints.)
> |
> | Set the concrete object size to the largest width and height that has
> …
> and similarly for 'cover'.

Fantasai, since you're the one of us who argued for this behavior, can
you confirm whether or not Leif is right, and the statement in Images
is redundant with the text from 2.1?  The special behavior implied by
those values was subtle enough that I didn't catch it until you
pointed it out, so I'm not confident whether I'll correctly recognize
what 2.1 says on the matter either.

Received on Wednesday, 22 February 2012 16:01:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:56 UTC