Here is some recent news from the W3C CSS mailing list that might be of
interest to some readers.
The CSS working group is the standards body responsible for implementing CSS
style sheet based web browser printing support via specifications (CSS -
Page Media Specification incorporating XHTML-Print) and a suite of test
cases as well.
TCS - Tykodi Consulting Services LLC
E-mail: ptykodi at tykodi.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-style-request at w3.org [mailto:www-style-request at w3.org] On Behalf
> Of fantasai
> Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 5:46 PM
> To: Tab Atkins Jr.
> Cc: Leif Arne Storset; www-style at w3.org> Subject: Re: [css3-images] 'image-fit/position' alias for 'object-
> fit/position' not needed
>> On 01/27/2011 02:19 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 2:18 PM, fantasai<fantasai.lists at inkedblade.net>
> >> On 01/27/2011 09:14 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 3:47 AM, Leif Arne Storset<lstorset at opera.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> The 'object-fit' and 'object-position' properties ask:
> >>>> # Do we need to allow browsers to alias 'image-position'
> >>>> # and 'image-fit' (the old names for these properties)
> >>>> # to these properties? Does any browser actually need
> >>>> # to do so?
> >>>> I believe only Opera has implemented these, and they were released
> >>>> the
> >>>> 'object-' names from the beginning. Besides, they were prefixed, so I
> >>>> don't
> >>>> think it would matter anyway.
> >>> Removed, thanks for the clarification!
> >> They weren't there for browser implementations, Tab, they
> >> were there for printer implementations. I don't think you
> >> should have removed that.
> > Were they unprefixed in printers?
>> They might have been. I'll have to check with HP.
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.