Re: [css3-images] Reintroduce object-fit: none

On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 7:46 AM, Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 11:50:31 +0100, Leif Arne Storset <lstorset@opera.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I was asked recently whether and why 'object-fit: none' was removed from
>> the spec. Digging in the archives, it seems the proposal to keep/revive it
>> was forgotten amid other issues. So this is a request to re-introduce
>> 'none' as a value for 'object-fit'. The definition would be "Render the
>> content at its intrinsic dimensions, overflowing if necessary."
>>
>> The use case is easy centering or positioning images without scaling them.
>> Centering images vertically in a box can be a PITA today, especially if
>> you don't know the dimensions. With image-fit:none, it is super-easy. Have
>> a look at the attached demo (only supported in Opera 11, AFAIK).
>>
>> (To avoid any confusion: There were objections to our proposal of another
>> value, 'object-fit: auto', because the proposal was that behavior depend
>> on content type. These issues do not affect the current proposal of
>> 'object-fit: none', since no content-type negotation takes place for
>> 'object-fit: none'.)
>
> In addition to this, I would also like to propose another state that is a
> mix of none and contain:
>
> * if the image fits in the content box, behave like "contain"
>
> * if the image does not fit in the content box, behave like "none"
>
> In short, it is "scale down only". The use case for this is for an image
> viewer where one wants to use the "best" fit, not either scale up small
> images or have large images overflow, which is the choices one has with just
> "contain" and "none".
>
> The exact syntax isn't very important. Either it is just a new value, as
> such...
>
> object-fit: scale-down; /* with another name, probably */
>
> ... or one makes object-fit and object-position take two comma-separated
> values, where the first one applies to "too small" images and the second
> applies to "too large" images, as such ...
>
> object-fit: none, contain;

These all sound acceptable to me.  If there's not any particular
objection to it, I'll make the change before I push to WD.

~TJ

Received on Wednesday, 26 January 2011 17:36:25 UTC