- 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