- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 03:24:38 -0800
- To: www-style@w3.org
On 02/22/2012 04:36 AM, Leif Arne Storset wrote: > Erik Dahlstrom <ed@opera.com> skreiv Wed, 22 Feb 2012 13:16:45 +0100 > >> In sections 5.4 and 5.5: >> >> [[ User agents MAY accept ‘image-fit’ as an alias for ‘object-fit’, as a previous version of this specification used that >> name. Authors must not use ‘image-fit’ in their stylesheets. ]] >> [[ User agents MAY accept ‘image-position’ as an alias for ‘object-position’, as a previous version of this specification >> used that name. Authors must not use ‘image-position’ in their stylesheets. ]] > > This is because printers (from HP, I assume) use the property in firmware. [0] It may not be a significant argument against > your proposal, though: these old printers will never be declared conforming to css3-images anyway. Unless new printers have to > work with old drivers or software or something. > >> Are there any precedents in any CSS specifications for this kind of aliasing? It sounds to me like a good way of introducing >> incompatibilities between user agents. >> >> Please consider removing the sentences that allow 'image-fit' and 'image-position'. > > 0. Nearest thing I can find for a citation for that is http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Jul/0538.html. Not a > very solid one, I must admit. One possibility would be to shift the aliasing from css3-images to the CSS Print Profile. ~fantasai
Received on Wednesday, 29 February 2012 11:25:16 UTC