- From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2012 22:21:16 -0700
- To: Alan Gresley <alan@css-class.com>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Sunday 2012-07-29 15:08 +1000, Alan Gresley wrote: > On 29/07/2012 2:22 PM, L. David Baron wrote: > > >http://www.jwz.org/blog/2012/07/non-bouncy-layouts/ describes a use > >case that we should try to address; specifying an *intrinsic size* > >for images that aren't loaded yet so that pages don't bounce around > >when images load. This is doable today if you want the images to be > >sized to their intrinsic size, but it's not doable today if you want > >to scale the images but preserve the intrinsic ratio (for example, > >by making them the width of their container). > > I believe this is what the value 'fill' does with the property > 'object-fit' by this algorithm (see point two for 'specified size') > [2]. This is not possible, since 'fill' is the initial value of 'object-fit', so it must be compatible with today's behavior. And today's behavior (per CSS 2.1) is that given something like: <img src="..." width="1500" height="1000" style="width: 100%"> in an 800px wide container, the image will end up being 800px wide and 1000px tall, rather than 600px tall. If the height="1000" is omitted, then there's no knowledge of the intrinsic dimensions prior to the image starting (at least) to load. -David -- 𝄞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 𝄂 𝄢 Mozilla http://www.mozilla.org/ 𝄂
Received on Sunday, 29 July 2012 05:21:44 UTC