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

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

From: Leif Arne Storset <lstorset@opera.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2012 11:36:20 +0100
To: www-style@w3.org, "Bert Bos" <bert@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.wawfquqttmo5g6@lastorset-aspire>
Bert Bos <bert@w3.org> skreiv Thu, 08 Mar 2012 20:40:39 +0100

> On Wednesday 29 February 2012 12:24:38 fantasai wrote:
>> 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'.
>
> I thought the old names were 'fit' and 'fit-position', rather than
> 'image-fit' and 'image-position'?
>
> As far as I can tell, we have never had any draft with 'image-fit' and
> 'image-position'. We indeed discussed those names, and went back and
> forth between 'image-fit' and 'fit' for a couple of months, but it was
> 'object-fit' that we finally published.

The point of aliasing is not related to what was published. Rather, what's  
important is what was implemented.

Having said that, it is really HP that has to speak up if this aliasing is  
to be kept. If their printers or drivers don't need this for backward  
compat, we should just drop it.

-- 
Leif Arne Storset
Core Technology Developer, Opera Software
Oslo, Norway
Received on Friday, 9 March 2012 10:36:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 22 May 2012 03:48:51 GMT