- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 11:11:22 -0700
- To: www-style@w3.org
On 03/29/2012 07:54 AM, Brad Kemper wrote: > On Mar 28, 2012, at 11:16 PM, fantasai<fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote: > >> Seem to have forgotten to update the spec with the Animatability field. >> Suggested values: >> >> object-fit: no >> object-position: yes >> image-resolution: no >> image-orientation: no >> >> Good/objection? >> >> ~fantasai > > It seems kind of arbitrary to not allow animating of image-resolution, since it takes a number and unit for its value. Seems like it should be easy to do. Should be easy, but the point of image-resolution is to correct the resolution of the image, not to define its size. If we want to scale things, we should have a feature that's designed to do that specifically, imo. > As for use cases, it could be used to animate the image size when you don't > know what the actual width/height dimensions are (and want it to affect layout). This seems like a use case for transforms that affect layout, not for animating image-resolution. > It could also be used as a special effect to smoothly animate from, say, > 0.25dpi to 1dppx at a fixed size. It doesn't change the resolution of the at a given size, it sets the intrinsic resolution which is *only used* to calculate the intrinsic size. > Or in a background at fixed background-size to sort of blur the image on > hover, by reducing its resolution as you increase the opacity of some > text in front of the background. Like I said, you can't use image-resolution to decrease the resolution while maintaining the same size... ~fantasai
Received on Thursday, 29 March 2012 18:11:54 UTC