On 08/03/2011 12:26 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 3:01 AM, Leif Arne Storset<lstorset@opera.com> wrote: >> >> Of course, we also implement the 'none' value (which HP may or may not >> implement) and the 'auto' value (which has been rejected by the WG). AFAIK >> no-one implements 'scale-down' yet. It would be reasonable to mark 'none' >> and 'scale-down' as at-risk, if marking parts of a property at-risk is a >> done thing. > > That seems reasonable. > > Everyone else, does it seem okay to make the object-* properties not > at-risk, and only mark the "none" and "scale-down" values of > object-fit as at-risk? I'd kick them to L4. I disagree with adding 'none', at least. ~fantasaiReceived on Wednesday, 3 August 2011 19:53:55 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 23 January 2023 02:14:02 UTC