W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2002

Re: RFC: ability to assign images to corners

From: Robert Koberg <rob@koberg.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 11:21:25 -0800
Message-ID: <0c7f01c1bb0c$f57260c0$8501a8c0@TILLER>
To: <www-style@w3.org>
one more thing on this:

even if you named these properties butthead1, jimmy2, etc we would love to
use the feature. It just makes sense to have it included. If the main thing
that is holding this up is naming then I say get over it and just create a
new name that makes sense.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Stuart Ballard" <sballard@NetReach.Net>
To: <www-style@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2002 10:44 AM
Subject: Re: RFC: ability to assign images to corners


> Bert Bos wrote:
> >
> > The CSS WG also likes it and in fact decided a few months back to try
> > to write a draft[1] about it. However, from *liking* it to actually
> > coming up with a consistent and implementable specification is quite a
> > long way. Corner pieces are relatively OK, but the edges may contain a
> > fractional number of tiles, what do you do then? Scale the tile? Scale
> > the element's content? Crop the tile? All of those? And how do you
> > keep the CSS rules simple to write? There are already quite a number
> > of border properties, we'd like to avoid that we get two dozen more...
>
> border-image-width: (<number> | <percentage> | auto){1,2}
> border-image-height: (<number> | <percentage> | auto){1,2}
>
> Width applies to top and bottom (separately if two numbers are
> specified). Height applies to left and right. The border thickness can
> be obtained from other means (ie, the image for the top border is always
> scaled to the height of the thickness of the border). The "repeat"
> property is always implied to be in the direction that the border goes
> in. (TBD: should it be possible to specify "position" on the image?)
>
> border-corner-image: (none | <url>){1,4}
>
> The size of the image would be determined unambiguously by the thickness
> of the two intersecting borders at that point, so the size doesn't have
> to be specified. If one image is specified, it applies at all four
> corners; otherwise the four images go clockwise from the top-left. If no
> corner-image is specified, the borders of the two intersecting corners
> should be used, separated by a diagonal line:
>
> ----------------+
> Top border     /|
> --------------+ |
>               | | <-- side border
>               | |
>
>
> All that's left is the question of how to actually specify the image for
> each side. The only reason that's complicated is that there are already
> so many overlapping border-* properties that are shorthands for each
> other. Presumably if anybody actually understands the rationale for all
> those properties, it should be relatively easy to see where an image url
> could be fitted into them. It should be possible to specify "auto" for
> the border thickness: the thickness should then be determined by the
> intrinsic size of the border image on that side.
>
> How's that for a concrete proposal? It doesn't cover absolutely
> everything (for example, it's not possible to specify an image that
> should be tiled uniformly over the whole border area) but it might be a
> good starting point?
>
> Stuart.
>
>
> --
> Stuart Ballard, Programmer
> FASTNET - Internet Solutions
> 215.283.2300, ext. 126
> www.fast.net
Received on Thursday, 21 February 2002 14:23:52 GMT

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