On 09/23/2014 10:08 PM, Martin Thomson wrote: > On 2014-09-23, at 13:53, Daniel Holbert <dholb...@mozilla.com> wrote: > >> Link to standard: >> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-images/#valuedef-pixelated > > Reading the spec it doesn’t say anything about what to do when the image is > scaled up on one axis and down on the other. It’s probably not a > particularly valid use case, but I’d expect there to be at least something on > the subject. The image sizing examples in the same document actually > demonstrate this exact case, odd as it might seem. >
Yup, good question. So, three late-breaking updates from ~today that address this: 1) Tab moved this property-value to the CSS Images Level 3 spec in the last day or so, so I believe the canonical definition is now here: http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-images-3/#valdef-image-rendering-pixelated (This is a *slightly* different URL than the one I gave in my initial "intent to implement" post -- note the "-3" in "css-images-3". Sorry for the confusion.) 2) I posted to www-style asking basically your exact question earlier today (following up on a thread from Simon Sapin), and Tab accepted Simon's proposal to relax the language & make it only care if "at least one" axis is being upscaled, and otherwise do the "auto" behavior. 3) Later on today, in response to ehsan's question on this thread, I asked if there was any strong reason to have the upscaling/downscaling behavior-difference in the first place; there was not, so the distinction was removed altogether. So the current spec text is simply: # pixelated # The image must be scaled with the # "nearest neighbor" or similar algorithm, # to preserve a "pixelated" look as the image # changes in size. from here: http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-images-3/#valdef-image-rendering-pixelated Thanks, ~Daniel _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
