- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 13:10:37 -0500
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Cc: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>, Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, www-style@w3.org
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 1:05 PM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote: > 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. Granted (though a document does act somewhat like a replaced element in the browser itself). ~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 22 September 2009 18:12:06 UTC