- From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 16:42:29 -0500
- To: www-style@w3.org
http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-images/#object-fit (5.4, Sizing Objects: the ‘object-fit’ property) says in the definition of 'contain': # Determine the used ‘height’ and ‘width’ of the element as usual, # except: If both ‘height’ and ‘width’ are ‘auto’, and the used # value of at least one of ‘max-width’ and ‘max-height’ is not # ‘none’, then compute the element's used width and used height as # though the intrinsic dimensions of the contents were infinitely # large numbers whose ratio is the actual intrinsic ratio of the # contents. This will proportionally scale the used width and # height up to the given maximum constraints. and then in the definition of 'cover' it says: # Determine the used ‘height’ and ‘width’ of the element as usual, # except: If both ‘height’ and ‘width’ are ‘auto’, and the used # value of at least one of ‘min-width’ and ‘min-height’ is not # ‘none’, then compute the element's used width and used height as # though the intrinsic dimensions of the contents were infinitely # small numbers whose ratio is the actual intrinsic ratio of the # contents. This will proportionally scale the used width and # height down to the given minimum constraints. For a start, as far as I'm aware, min/max-width/height don't have used values; they only influence the used values of width and height. More importantly, the statement under 'contain' (where it deals with max-*) is incorrect, since min-* override max-*, so if an element with object-fit: contain has min-* set and hits the case mentioned above, the final sentence quoted above won't hold. However, if a value of max-* that's been adjusted by any larger min-* is used, then I believe it will hold. It's also not clear to me when these statements cause the behavior to change. Perhaps the spec should explain that? -David -- 𝄞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 𝄂 𝄢 Mozilla http://www.mozilla.org/ 𝄂
Received on Wednesday, 14 March 2012 21:42:53 UTC