W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2012

Re: [css3-images] Probably editorial: 'object-fit' values 'cover' and 'contain' contain redundant definition

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 03:08:06 -0800
Message-ID: <4F4E0716.5060505@inkedblade.net>
To: www-style@w3.org
On 02/22/2012 08:00 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 3:00 AM, Leif Arne Storset<lstorset@opera.com>  wrote:
>> Ah, didn't realize that was a rejection (rather than a postponement).
>> I disagree (i. e. agree that it is out of scope). You're right that they are
>> not redundant with each other, but the first definition is redundant with
>> the now more robust CSS 2.1 section 10.4.
>> I can live with it, though, since it's not incorrect, and I've already
>> implemented and understand what it's talking about. :) I do think it is very
>> confusing for first-time readers.
>> (Just now I realized that the introduction also mentions this behavior:
>> "[The property] also enables scaling a replaced element up to a specified
>> maximum size or down to a specified minimum size while preserving its aspect
>> ratio.". That should also have been deleted in my change proposal.)
>> If you do keep it (and it's not too late in the process for editorial
>> changes!), I would suggest adding a reference to CSS 2.1 section 10.4, where
>> element sizing is defined more explicitly. That way, first-time readers will
>> get that this part of the definition deals with something different than the
>> other part. Such as:
>> | 'contain'
>> …
>> | This will proportionally scale the used width and height up to the
>> | given maximum constraints.
>> + (See [CSS21] section 10.4 for more information on min/max constraints.)
>> |
>> | Set the concrete object size to the largest width and height that has
>> …
>> and similarly for 'cover'.
> Fantasai, since you're the one of us who argued for this behavior, can
> you confirm whether or not Leif is right, and the statement in Images
> is redundant with the text from 2.1?  The special behavior implied by
> those values was subtle enough that I didn't catch it until you
> pointed it out, so I'm not confident whether I'll correctly recognize
> what 2.1 says on the matter either.

I'm having trouble loading it all in my brain in order to explain it, but
IIRC it's sufficiently explained here:

Received on Wednesday, 29 February 2012 11:08:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:12 UTC