- From: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
- Date: Thu, 06 May 2010 15:50:26 +0200
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: julien.cayzac@gmail.com, www-style@w3.org
Le 05/05/10 17:45, Tab Atkins Jr. a écrit : > 3) We add aspect-ratio, but have it only interact with 'auto' values > for width/height. So, in the previous example, the aspect-ratio would > have no effect, since both width and height are already specified. If > you set height:auto instead, though, then aspect-ratio will be > consulted to resolve it. Or you could set height and leave width as > auto, so aspect-ratio would also have an effect. Finally, if both > were auto (the default), then whichever is resolved first (typically > width) would be resolved normally, then aspect-ratio would be used to > resolve the other dimension (typically height). I agree. 'aspect-ratio' could then take three different values: none no aspect ratio specified <number> the aspect ratio width/height; example: 'aspect-ratio: 1.5' <integer>/<integer> the aspect ratio width/height computed by the division of the two integers; both integers must be positive, second integer cannot be 0 I hope nobody's suggesting keywords like 'vga' or '1080p', because that's a true pandora's box. And yes, we need to preserve the min/max contraints otherwise the algo to computed this will be hell. Just one comment: 'aspect-ratio' could take a second component value to say if the width or the height has precedence in the case both width and height are auto. Like 'aspect-ratio: 4/3 width'. </Daniel>
Received on Thursday, 6 May 2010 13:51:01 UTC