- From: Devon via GitHub <noreply@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2025 22:41:41 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> What syntax do we want?
I think the most straightforward and effective approach would be something like you mentioned with the ability to select **based on a min or max**:
> ```
> :aspect-ratio( [ [ min | max ]? && <ratio> ] | portrait | landscape)
> ```
> Do we want it to reflect the aspect ratio described in the markup, or only the actual aspect ratio of the replaced content? (The former is probably more useful.)
I think basing it on the actual natural dimensions of the content will be the most robust. Natural ratio never lies, even if the width/height attributes aren’t set.
Do we think this is sufficient enough to fulfill the need and straightforward enough that it fits into the already existing ecosystem?
Example in production:
```
/* Default: crop to fill the box */
img {
width: 200px;
height: 200px;
object-fit: cover;
}
/* If the intrinsic w/h ≤ 1/2 (skinny), show the whole image */
img:aspect-ratio(max 1/2) {
object-fit: contain;
}
```
--
GitHub Notification of comment by 7devv
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/12197#issuecomment-3021055094 using your GitHub account
--
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Monday, 30 June 2025 22:41:42 UTC