W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > July 2001

Re: Stretchy backgrounds? (background-width,height properties)

From: Stuart Ballard <sballard@netreach.com>
Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2001 21:42:34 -0400
Message-ID: <3B490C0A.DF4F2B13@netreach.com>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
CC: www-style@w3.org
Ian Hickson wrote:
> 
> Actually, the CSSWG simply hasn't gotten around to working on the
> background module of CSS3, since much more pressing issues (i18n, text,
> selectors, css2 errata, etc) have been taking out time.

Yes, once I found the past discussions, I became a lot less worried
about this issue. Thanks for clarifying why exactly we haven't yet seen
a draft that has background-size in it.

> It is likely that
> when this module is worked on, background-size will be accepted. I hope
> so, anyway, and intend to strongly argue the case! :-)

Out of interest, why background-size as opposed to background-width and
background-height? After all, the min/max width/height properties use
this syntax, as do (of course) width and height themselves. Using two
separate properties seems to be consistent with the rest of the spec.
Also, as far as I can see with the background-size proposal, there's no
way to say "set the width to 100% but use the intrinsic height", which
might be useful for things like a wiggly gradient effect (in conjunction
with background-repeat: repeat-y).

Personally, I'd like to see -moz-background-(whatever) implemented even
before the WG gets a chance to do this. But I know that the mozilla CSS
folks have more important things to do, too (and I'm certainly not up to
coding it myself!)

> Note that the post you quote didn't say that the WG was against it, the
> post was merely saying that it was "probable". Pure conjecture.

Fair enough :)

Thanks for the clarification :)

Stuart.
Received on Sunday, 8 July 2001 21:43:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:10 GMT