Re: [css3-images] Editorial: Wording of 'object-fit: fill' apparently mandates filling the content box

Leif Arne Storset <lstorset@opera.com> skreiv Wed, 01 Feb 2012 15:34:06  
+0100

> In section 5.4, the definition for 'object-fit: fill' currently contains:
>
> # Set the object's size to the concrete object size obtained by running
> # the object sizing algorithm with a specified size and a default object
> # size equal to the replaced element's used width and height.
> #
> - This will make the contents exactly fill the replaced element's
> - content box.
>
> This statement will probably be interpreted too strongly. For example, an
> SVG image with preserveAspectRatio not set to "none" will be given the
> entire content box of the replaced element to render in, but it will
> actually only render into an area that will maintain the aspect ratio.  
> [0]
>
> Of course, if the reader consults section 5.2. "CSS⇋Object Negotiation",
> step 3, the correct behavior is specified there. However, I think it's
> good to be clearer about the behavior here.
>
> Note that Opera's implementation (AFAIK the only of the two that is  
> easily
> obtainable) does not currently match the spec in this respect. (Or  
> rather,
> it matches the overly-strict interpretation of the paragraph quoted  
> above.)
>
> Suggested wording:
>
> # Set the object's size
> [...snip rest of paragraph...]
> #
> + This will allow the object to fill the replaced element's content box.
> +
> + NOTE: However, the object may choose to render at a smaller size, as
> +       mentioned in section 5.2. For example, an SVG image will usually
> +       preserve its aspect ratio even if 'fill' is specified.

Suddenly I see that there's a note to this effect at the end of section  
5.4. My suggested note can probably be dropped, though I maintain my  
suggested rewording.

-- 
Leif Arne Storset
Core Technology Developer, Opera Software
Oslo, Norway

Received on Wednesday, 1 February 2012 15:19:36 UTC