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

Re: [css3-images] Animatability of object-fit, object-position, image-resolution, and image-orientation

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 11:11:22 -0700
Message-ID: <4F74A5CA.40504@inkedblade.net>
To: www-style@w3.org
On 03/29/2012 07:54 AM, Brad Kemper wrote:
> On Mar 28, 2012, at 11:16 PM, fantasai<fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>  wrote:
>
>> Seem to have forgotten to update the spec with the Animatability field.
>> Suggested values:
>>
>>   object-fit:        no
>>   object-position:   yes
>>   image-resolution:  no
>>   image-orientation: no
>>
>> Good/objection?
>>
>> ~fantasai
>
> It seems kind of arbitrary to not allow animating of image-resolution, since it takes a number and unit for its value. Seems like it should be easy to do.

Should be easy, but the point of image-resolution is to correct the resolution
of the image, not to define its size. If we want to scale things, we should
have a feature that's designed to do that specifically, imo.

> As for use cases, it could be used to animate the image size when you don't
> know what the actual width/height dimensions are (and want it to affect layout).

This seems like a use case for transforms that affect layout, not for
animating image-resolution.

> It could also be used as a special effect to smoothly animate from, say,
> 0.25dpi to 1dppx at a fixed size.

It doesn't change the resolution of the at a given size, it sets the
intrinsic resolution which is *only used* to calculate the intrinsic
size.

> Or in a background at fixed background-size to sort of blur the image on
> hover, by reducing its resolution as you increase the opacity of some
> text in front of the background.

Like I said, you can't use image-resolution to decrease the resolution
while maintaining the same size...

~fantasai
Received on Thursday, 29 March 2012 18:11:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 22 May 2012 03:48:53 GMT