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

Re: image-fit and image-position renamed?

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:05:33 -0700
Message-ID: <4AB911ED.3060708@inkedblade.net>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>, Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, www-style@w3.org
Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> 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).

The thing is, for SVG this would apply to the entire SVG image. It's
not about replaced content for them.

Received on Tuesday, 22 September 2009 18:06:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:07:39 UTC