Re: [css3-images] Animatability of object-fit, object-position, image-resolution, and image-orientation

On Mar 30, 2012, at 11:25 AM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:

> On 03/29/2012 09:09 PM, Brad Kemper wrote:
>> 
>>> This seems like a use case for transforms that affect layout, not for
>>> animating image-resolution.
>> 
>> I don't understand why you would want something separate to do the same thing. We don't prevent people from animating 'width' and 'height'. Animating 'resolution' would have the exact same effect when 'width' and 'height' are left at 'auto' (which is pretty common when you don't know the image dimensions ahead of time).
> 
> If we want transforms that affect layout, we want them for more than just
> raster images. We want them for vector images, for arbitrary blocks, etc.

Be that as it may, 'resolution' has the effect of changing an image's dimensions just as surely as 'width' and 'height' do. The only difference is than 'resolution' can do it with one declaration instead of two for raster images (which have intrinsic ratios). It just doesn't make sense to allow animation of 'width' and 'height', while arbitrarily prohibiting animation of 'resolution'.

> I don't think this is the right place to handle that use case.

I'm not arguing for that use case. 'resolution' only affects raster images. It affects them by giving the image an effective width and height when the two properties for those are at 'auto'. Width and height are things people want to animate, usually without changing the aspect ratio. Animating 'resolution' is an excellent way to do so when you don't know the intrinsic ratio and size, which is a common situation for raster images. 

I don't think it is as common a situation for vector images, to not know ahead of time the intrinsic ratio, width, or height, where you want to animate the size based  on the intrinsic ratio that does exist somewhere within it.

Received on Friday, 30 March 2012 23:41:53 UTC