- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 11:51:29 -0700
- To: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- CC: "Grant, Melinda" <melinda.grant@hp.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, "www-svg@w3.org" <www-svg@w3.org>
Erik Dahlström wrote: > >>> Previously, the CSS spec had the same keywords as SVG. What's >>> the reason for the change? >> >> The keywords were initially taken from SMIL 1.0, but it was felt that >> the functionality was different enough that we should use different >> names to prevent confusion. Also, the CSS group felt that the >> previous keywords weren't as descriptive as they could be. > > The SVG WG seemed to be ok with a new property, and could adopt it for > use in SVG too, but 'image-fit' wasn't seen as a general enough name. > > See http://www.w3.org/2009/03/16-svg-minutes.html#item06 Actually, the original name in the CSS draft was copied from SMIL and was 'fit', not 'preserveAspectRatio'. The CSSWG felt 'fit' was too general--since in CSS it only applies to replaced elements, and not to any other boxes--and decided to rename it 'image-fit'. I can't speak for the WG, but I think we'd be open to renaming it to align better with SVG. However, I don't think 'aspect-ratio' is a good name because this property doesn't give an aspect ratio. I'm not coming up with any good alternatives here, just fit-scaling: fill | cover | contain fit-position: <background-position> If you've got any other ideas throw them in... ~fantasai
Received on Tuesday, 21 April 2009 18:52:13 UTC