- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 19:15:05 -0700
- To: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- CC: "Grant, Melinda" <melinda.grant@hp.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, "www-svg@w3.org" <www-svg@w3.org>
fantasai wrote: > Erik Dahlström wrote: >> >>>> Previously, the CSS spec had the same keywords as SVG. What's >>>> the reason for the change? >>> >>> The keywords were initially taken from SMIL 1.0, but it was felt that >>> the functionality was different enough that we should use different >>> names to prevent confusion. Also, the CSS group felt that the >>> previous keywords weren't as descriptive as they could be. >> >> The SVG WG seemed to be ok with a new property, and could adopt it for >> use in SVG too, but 'image-fit' wasn't seen as a general enough name. >> >> See http://www.w3.org/2009/03/16-svg-minutes.html#item06 > > Actually, the original name in the CSS draft was copied from SMIL > and was 'fit', not 'preserveAspectRatio'. The CSSWG felt 'fit' > was too general--since in CSS it only applies to replaced elements, > and not to any other boxes--and decided to rename it 'image-fit'. > I can't speak for the WG, but I think we'd be open to renaming it > to align better with SVG. However, I don't think 'aspect-ratio' > is a good name because this property doesn't give an aspect ratio. > > I'm not coming up with any good alternatives here, just > fit-scaling: fill | cover | contain > fit-position: <background-position> > If you've got any other ideas throw them in... Gerrie Shults suggests object-scale or object-size. I'll throw in object-fit to that mix. ~fantasai
Received on Friday, 24 April 2009 02:15:57 UTC