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

Re: [css3-images] aliasing of object-fit/object-position

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 03:24:38 -0800
Message-ID: <4F4E0AF6.8020302@inkedblade.net>
To: www-style@w3.org
On 02/22/2012 04:36 AM, Leif Arne Storset wrote:
> Erik Dahlstrom <ed@opera.com> skreiv Wed, 22 Feb 2012 13:16:45 +0100
>
>> In sections 5.4 and 5.5:
>>
>> [[ User agents MAY accept ‘image-fit’ as an alias for ‘object-fit’, as a previous version of this specification used that
>> name. Authors must not use ‘image-fit’ in their stylesheets. ]]
>> [[ User agents MAY accept ‘image-position’ as an alias for ‘object-position’, as a previous version of this specification
>> used that name. Authors must not use ‘image-position’ in their stylesheets. ]]
>
> This is because printers (from HP, I assume) use the property in firmware. [0] It may not be a significant argument against
> your proposal, though: these old printers will never be declared conforming to css3-images anyway. Unless new printers have to
> work with old drivers or software or something.
>
>> Are there any precedents in any CSS specifications for this kind of aliasing? It sounds to me like a good way of introducing
>> incompatibilities between user agents.
>>
>> Please consider removing the sentences that allow 'image-fit' and 'image-position'.
>
> 0. Nearest thing I can find for a citation for that is http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Jul/0538.html. Not a
> very solid one, I must admit.

One possibility would be to shift the aliasing from css3-images to the
CSS Print Profile.

~fantasai
Received on Wednesday, 29 February 2012 11:25:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:51 GMT