- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 12:55:46 -0500
- To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Cc: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, www-style@w3.org
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sep 22, 2009, at 8:14 AM, Håkon Wium Lie wrote: > >> I suggest that we either (1) stick to the current "image" names but >> specify that this can apply to <video> as well, or that we (2) rename >> these to 'content-fit' and 'content-position'. >> >> My preference would be (2). > > Of those two choices, I prefer the first. Video is a series of images, so it > is not that hard to think of 'image-*' as something that would apply to > video too. But "content" implies so much more (such as including text), and > so I don't think that name is as clear. replaced-fit/-position? It should apply to any replaced element with an intrinsic aspect ratio or size (respectively). ~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 22 September 2009 17:56:48 UTC