- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 10:37:52 +0100
- To: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>, "Grant, Melinda" <melinda.grant@hp.com>
- Cc: "Dean Jackson" <dino@apple.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 20:29:50 +0100, Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com> wrote: > I see that they've been made image properties image-fit and > image-position. Even though it isn't a great stretch to call video an > image (a moving one), wouldn't these properties apply to all replaced > content with an intrinsic size? If so, wouldn't content-orientation, > content-fit and content-position be more fitting names? Yeah, for <video> image-* doesn't seem so appropriate. Also, given that CSS transformations are pretty much guaranteed to be part of the CSS platform, do we really need image-orientation? -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Thursday, 4 December 2008 09:38:42 UTC