W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2009

Re: 'image-fit' vs preserveAspectRatio

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 19:15:05 -0700
Message-ID: <49F120A9.8010107@inkedblade.net>
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.

Received on Friday, 24 April 2009 02:15:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:07:35 UTC