- From: Tab Atkins Jr.. via cvs-syncmail <cvsmail@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 17:13:44 +0000
- To: public-css-commits@w3.org
Update of /sources/public/csswg/css3-images
In directory hutz:/tmp/cvs-serv10987
Modified Files:
Overview.html Overview.src.html
Log Message:
Removed notes about image-fit and image-position.
Index: Overview.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /sources/public/csswg/css3-images/Overview.html,v
retrieving revision 1.59
retrieving revision 1.60
diff -u -d -r1.59 -r1.60
--- Overview.html 27 Jan 2011 17:08:23 -0000 1.59
+++ Overview.html 27 Jan 2011 17:13:41 -0000 1.60
@@ -1771,12 +1771,6 @@
class=property>object-position</code></a>’.</p>
</div>
- <p class=issue>Do we need to allow browsers to alias ‘<code
- class=property>image-position</code>’ and ‘<code
- class=property>image-fit</code>’ (the old names for these
- properties) to these properties? Does any browser actually need to do
- so?</p>
-
<p class=note>Note: the ‘<a href="#object-fit0"><code
class=property>object-fit</code></a>’ property has similar
semantics to the fit attribute in <a href="#SMIL10"
@@ -1844,12 +1838,6 @@
<p class=note>Note that areas of the box not covered by the replaced
element will show the element's background.</p>
-
- <p class=issue>Do we need to allow browsers to alias ‘<code
- class=property>image-position</code>’ and ‘<code
- class=property>image-fit</code>’ (the old names for these
- properties) to these properties? Does any browser actually need to do
- so?</p>
</div>
</div>
Index: Overview.src.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /sources/public/csswg/css3-images/Overview.src.html,v
retrieving revision 1.61
retrieving revision 1.62
diff -u -d -r1.61 -r1.62
--- Overview.src.html 27 Jan 2011 17:08:23 -0000 1.61
+++ Overview.src.html 27 Jan 2011 17:13:41 -0000 1.62
@@ -1262,10 +1262,6 @@
initial value for 'object-position'.</p>
</div>
- <p class=issue>Do we need to allow browsers to alias 'image-position' and 'image-fit'
- (the old names for these properties) to these properties? Does any browser actually
- need to do so?</p>
-
<p class="note">Note: the 'object-fit' property has similar semantics to
the fit attribute in [[SMIL10]].</p>
</div>
@@ -1309,10 +1305,6 @@
<p class="note">Note that areas of the box not covered by the replaced
element will show the element's background.</p>
-
- <p class=issue>Do we need to allow browsers to alias 'image-position' and 'image-fit'
- (the old names for these properties) to these properties? Does any browser actually
- need to do so?</p>
</div>
</div>
Received on Thursday, 27 January 2011 17:13:45 UTC