- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 6 May 2010 14:56:22 -0700
- To: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
- Cc: julien.cayzac@gmail.com, www-style@w3.org
On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 2:49 PM, Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com> wrote: > Le 06/05/10 19:23, Tab Atkins Jr. a écrit : > >> Is there any reason for this? I'd think it would just use the normal >> rules for resolving width/height. Whichever one normally takes >> precedence does so, and then aspect-ratio is consulted to constrain >> the other one. If we wanted to change which dimension was used as the >> "primary" input for the sizing algo, we should do that separately >> rather than shoving it into a nominally unrelated property. > > Televisions preserving the aspect-ratio of the image on a screen of > another aspect-ratio (4/3 on a 16/9 tv for instance) often offer > the two modes (black strips around height preservation or clipping of > width preservation. You can do that by just setting an aspect ratio along with height:100% and width:auto, though. (When that doesn't work, it's a failing of the current CSS treatment of percentages in height, which we discussed at the ftf.) In addition, actual replaced elements like <video> can already adjust their sizing in those ways while preserving aspect-ratio, via object-fit:contain or cover. ~TJ
Received on Thursday, 6 May 2010 21:57:14 UTC