- From: Lea Verou via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2017 05:11:55 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> However, I think wanting to scale images up is a frequent thing, usually handled via `height: auto; width: auto; min-height: 100%; min-width: 100%`. I have never seen anything like this in my 12 years of web dev. Most designers wouldn't be caught dead upscaling images. If it’s a "frequent thing", surely you can remember at least a couple of use cases? All I can think of is spanning header images, but that's typically done via `background`, as it should. > `none` would clamp both as a minimum and maximum, so it wouldn't matter which one of `fill`, `contain` or `cover` is used. The `none` case could also be treated separately, without `fill`, `contain` nor `cover`. > `fill` = `fill scale-any` `contain` = `contain scale-any` `cover` = `cover scale-any` `none` = `fill none` = `contain none` = `cover none` `scale-down` = `contain scale-down` > And `scale-up` could default to `cover scale-up`, and `scale-any` to `fill scale-any`. Is there any point to all these aliases? The reason both `contain` and `contain scale-down` is allowed in my proposal is backwards compat with the current values, not some philosophical notion of completeness. Bottom line is, we don’t typically add syntax without use cases. So far you have not demonstrated any use cases. **If you cannot demonstrate actual, widespread use cases, please stop hijacking this thread.** -- GitHub Notification of comment by LeaVerou Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1578#issuecomment-312550951 using your GitHub account
Received on Monday, 3 July 2017 05:12:01 UTC