W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-respimg@w3.org > December 2016

Re: aspect ratio as an attribute

From: Adam van den Hoven <adam@littlefyr.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2016 15:22:34 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAkH_kO6Jvii01PsmgwX=ZynMrFETCiTduLuw8v1zsC4hZyNWQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
Cc: Alex Bell <alex@bellandwhistle.net>, "public-respimg@w3.org" <public-respimg@w3.org>, Paul Deschamps <pdescham49@gmail.com>, Yoav Weiss <yoav@yoav.ws>, Tommy Hodgins <tomhodgins@gmail.com>, Jason Grigsby <jason@cloudfour.com>, Greg Whitworth <gwhit@microsoft.com>, "Hall, Charles (DET-MRM)" <Charles.Hall@mrm-mccann.com>, Jonathan Kingston <jonathan@jooped.co.uk>, Steve Claflin <steve@steveclaflin.com>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
We *could* but I'm not sure that having the same attribute name that has
two different meanings and two different effects on two similar elements is
such a great idea. Aspect ratio is *mostly* enough for most cases so
sticking with just the one attribute will probably be the least confusing,
unless the plan is to deprecate <img> altogether in which case we can forgo
adding new features to <img> and stick with <source>.

On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 3:11 PM, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 22 Dec 2016 17:03:51 +0100, Adam van den Hoven <adam@littlefyr.com>
> wrote:
> Sorry, I was referring to the idea of redefining the height and width
>> attributes to express resource dimensions.
> Ah OK. Right, we can't do that for <img>. But we could for <source>...
> --
> Simon Pieters
> Opera Software
Received on Thursday, 22 December 2016 23:23:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:06:20 UTC