- From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 18:00:15 -0700
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>, Behnam Esfahbod ZWNJ <behnam@zwnj.org>, WWW-Style <www-style@w3.org>
On Jul 19, 2011, at 5:16 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. I'm confused, Brian. Doesn't 'background-size' take care of what you want? I don't know where object-fit comes into play.
Received on Wednesday, 20 July 2011 01:01:30 UTC