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

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

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2001 20:30:57 -0700 (Pacific Daylight Time)
To: Stuart Ballard <sballard@netreach.com>
cc: <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.WNT.4.31.0107082029290.1020-100000@HIXIE.netscape.com>
On Sun, 8 Jul 2001, Stuart Ballard wrote:
>
> Out of interest, why background-size as opposed to background-width and
> background-height?

For consistency with 'background-position'.


> 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).

Presumably:

   background-size: 100% auto;

Cheers,
-- 
Ian Hickson                                            )\     _. - ._.)   fL
Invited Expert, CSS Working Group                     /. `- '  (  `--'
The views expressed in this message are strictly      `- , ) -  > ) \
personal and not those of Netscape or Mozilla. ________ (.' \) (.' -' ______
Received on Sunday, 8 July 2001 23:31:28 GMT

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