On 09/23/2014 04:24 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> Would it make sense to have separate properties for "scale up" and
> "scale down"? With image-rendering being a shorthand for setting both?
Firstly: per my replies on the subthread started by ehsan, the
distinction in "scale up" vs. "scale down" behavior has (just now!) been
removed from the spec. It turns out that it was a somewhat arbitrary choice.
I suspect that removes the motivation for your question, but just in
case it doesn't: I don't think see a strong use-case for an author to
request specific & different scale-up vs. scale-down behaviors --
particularly given that there are only a few "image-rendering" options
anyway, and only one of them ("pixelated") is specced with
actually-reliable results. (The others are basically
whatever-the-rendering-engine-wants-to-do, under these rough
guidelines.) If an author really wants different behavior for scaling
up vs. scaling down, they can already get their desired result via media
queries and/or JS.
> Separately, isn't "image-rendering" a bit too generic of a name for
> setting scaling strategy?
Perhaps, but that ship has sailed :) This property was originally part
of SVG, and there, I think the "scaling" aspect was just implied. :)
(since it's already in the SVG name)
If it didn't already exist in SVG, and the CSSWG were creating this
property from scratch, they probably would have picked a different name
that included some mention of "scaling"; but here we are.
_______________________________________________
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
