- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 17:16:59 -0700
- To: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>
- Cc: Behnam Esfahbod ZWNJ <behnam@zwnj.org>, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>, WWW-Style <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com> wrote: > From: Tab Atkins Jr. [mailto:jackalmage@gmail.com] >> On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 10:56 PM, Behnam Esfahbod ZWNJ <behnam@zwnj.org> wrote: >>> The square-box-and-fill model works better with the "object-fit" >>> property and it's "fill" value. In fact, having a solution based on >>> the object-fit property, there is the possibility to support yet a few >>> more methods, like "cover", which is also impossible to implement >>> using the current features. Also, note that "object-fit: contain" is >>> equivalent to "45deg" or "135deg". >> >> Are there any use-cases for such things? They definitely >> *could* be done, but I cant' think of any reason why you'd >> want to. It would be equivalent to you just specifying an >> angle directly (something of the form n*90deg + 45deg), >> with a bit of a scale thrown in. > > Use case: Applying the same linear-gradient value for background-image across boxes of different aspect ratios. It seems like that can be done by just using <angle> for orientation and <percentage> for color-stop positions. ~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 20 July 2011 00:17:49 UTC