- From: Oriol Brufau via GitHub <noreply@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2025 23:17:31 +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. ```css img:natural-state(aspect-ratio <= 1/2) { object-fit: contain; } ``` Also `:natural-state(aspect-ratio > 1/2)`, `:natural-state(1/2 <= aspect-ratio <= 2)`, `:natural-state(aspect-ratio)`, etc. And we could also have other natural state queries, like `:natural-state(width >= 100px)` for the natural width, or analogous for the natural height. BTW this is reminding me of #6402, where scroll queries got a `scroll-state()` function. But I'm not strongly arguing for `:natural-state()`, I mostly think this should use `<=`, `<`, `>`, `>=`, `=` in some way, which is much more clear than a min-/max- prefix notation. > I think basing it on the actual natural dimensions of the content will be the most robust Agree, it should check the [natural aspect ratio](https://drafts.csswg.org/css-images-3/#natural-aspect-ratio). The attributes just set presentational hints, and it's probably better to not change that. And this is a selector so it can't depend on styles. -- GitHub Notification of comment by Loirooriol Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/12197#issuecomment-3021127986 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 23:17:32 UTC