- From: Devon via GitHub <noreply@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2025 17:18:26 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> I would prefer reusing the [range syntax](https://drafts.csswg.org/mediaqueries-5/#mq-range-context) if possible. E.g. > > img:natural-state(aspect-ratio <= 1/2) { > object-fit: contain; > } I agree, range is a better convention to follow here. > we could also have other natural state queries, like :natural-state(width >= 100px) for the natural width, or analogous for the natural height. I like this idea. Some other possible options if we wanted to open it up to include ability to query width/height could be: - `:intrinsic()` - `:natural()` ### Examples: ``` img:natural(width <= 100px) { } img:natural(aspect-ratio <= 1/2) { object-fit: contain; } ``` ``` img:intrinsic(width <= 100px) {} img:intrinsic(aspect-ratio > 2) { object-fit: cover; } ``` Else if we only want to keep it in scope of aspect ratio, `:aspect-ratio()` is the most straightforward, but I could see benefit of a more universal selector. > We don't want a situation where the image metadata can be inferred through CSS when HTML insists it not be visible to authors. Definitely a security risk we don't want to create with this. Any implementation needs to enforce the same-origin/CORS restrictions to avoid leaking metadata -- GitHub Notification of comment by 7devv Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/12197#issuecomment-3028642373 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Wednesday, 2 July 2025 17:18:27 UTC