- From: Allan Sandfeld Jensen <kde@carewolf.com>
- Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 23:08:39 +0200
- To: www-style@w3.org
I have to agree that the values for fit seems wrong. But ultimately I displeased with the property in general. I would have preferred something more generic and hopefully something that could be similar to the scaling techniques to be used in CSS3 Backgrounds. It is interesting that the two methods of scaling are so different: Fit can only be used to scale images to either width, height or both, and background-size can only be used to scale to certain sizes. Of course background-size is the more powerfull here because it can be used for fitting by specifying one or two values of 100%. Neither of the two properties can be used for scaling according to intrinsic size (e.g. scale image to double size). So my suggestion, to keep things consistent, would be to replace fit with something like replaced-size or scale with a syntax like background-size. Though at this point it would probably be best to start by removing fit from CSS3 Paged. It has nothing to do there in the first place. `Allan
Received on Sunday, 15 October 2006 21:08:59 UTC