Allows developers to specify the intrinsic size for media elements (<img> and <video>).
This attribute will override media elements' intrinsic sizing info. Specifically, a <img> element's naturalWidth/naturalHeight will reflect the values specified in this attribute. Similarly, a <video> element's videoWidth/videoHeight will reflect the values specified in this attribute.
This attribute will allow media elements to maintain the aspect ratio. It will allow developers to only specify one dimension (to a percentage or pixel value) and have the other dimension computed immediately without causing a visual re-flow.
Firefox: No public signals
Edge: No public signals
Safari: No public signals
Web developers: No signals
This attribute modifies the behavior of <img> and <video> elements. The intrinsic size of the media elements dimension will be overridden by this attribute. In addition, it will change the way intrinsic size is determined for responsive images.
Allows developers to specify the intrinsic size for media elements (<img> and <video>).
This attribute will override media elements' intrinsic sizing info. Specifically, a <img> element's naturalWidth/naturalHeight will reflect the values specified in this attribute. Similarly, a <video> element's videoWidth/videoHeight will reflect the values specified in this attribute.
This attribute will allow media elements to maintain the aspect ratio. It will allow developers to only specify one dimension (to a percentage or pixel value) and have the other dimension computed immediately without causing a visual re-flow.
If the main use case is preserving the aspect ratio, why isn't it
possible to set an aspect ratio without setting a size?
(Or is it? I can't tell, since there's no spec and the explainer
link is a 404.)
Firefox: No public signals
Edge: No public signals
Safari: No public signals
Web developers: No signals
Yes
Why do you think it's a good idea to publicly ship a feature that
has no spec, no public signals of support from other vendors, none
from web developers, and (afaict from your Intent to Implement) no
review by relevant standards expertise such as the CSSWG or the TAG
or the HTML spec editors at WHATWG and therefore (again, afaict) has
not received any significant design review or approval from the
community outside of your Chrome Team colleagues?
~fantasai
Yoav Weiss
unread,
Aug 16, 2018, 6:18:07 AM8/16/18
Reply to author
Sign in to reply to author
Forward
Sign in to forward
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to fantasai, Luna Lu, blink-dev, icle...@chromium.org
This email is intent to implement, so intent to ship is not needed for now.
On Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 6:18:07 AM UTC-4, Yoav Weiss wrote:
amelia.bel...@gmail.com
unread,
Sep 17, 2018, 6:13:33 PM9/17/18
Reply to author
Sign in to reply to author
Forward
Sign in to forward
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to blink-dev
Are there any plans to make a formal proposal to have this attribute added to HTML?
A month after this Intent to Implement request for Chromium, I don't see any directly relevant issues on either the WHATWG or W3C HTML standards issue trackers, nor any dedicated WICG discussion threads.
I agree that the ability to set a image aspect ratio in the markup is strongly needed, and is especially important as part of the lazyload proposal. But I'd recommend discussing the syntax in a standards forum, with input from other browser teams and people working on related standards proposals, before spending too much effort on an implementation.