W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > January 2004

Re: Possible inadequacies in CSS3 Border-Image proposed specification

From: Vincent Starre <thebitman@comcast.net>
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 20:13:19 -0500
To: ernestcline@mindspring.com, www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <opr1x5ohg85kiosw@mail.attbi.com>

> I think the current sixteen border image model can be adapted to do
> what you want without having to add eight additional images.
> What is needed is a way to specify that the images should tile
> in from the corners instead of out from the center of the border.
> I can't think of any reason one would want to do both at the same time,
> which would be the only reason one would need twenty four images
> instead of sixteen.
> The way to do that given the current model, (which now that I've
> taken a closer look at doesn't make me happy, but I don't have
> an alternative to present just yet) would be to add some additional
> values to the 'border-fit' properties so that there exist versions
> of the "repeat" and "overflow" values that would fill in from the
> corners instead of the center of the border, as well as values
> that would fill in from a particular corner, so that the:
> C
> C
> C
> C
> C
> effect you described could be done.

Yes, I believe that would work, or at least, has the potential to work. 
But, regaurding my concern about lining-up background-images, this may 
have the same limitation. Some people would want their border images to 
cover the content's background-image, or even to cover the content itself, 
while others (such as me) would want the background-image of the content 
to take precedence. That would require the borders, background-image, and 
content, to each have their own z-index, wouldnt it?
Also, if you are telling the images to be moved inward while on the 
border- what about colisions between corners and edges? That seems like it 
could lead to all sorts of nastiness about telling which image to display 
or push, for example. (Do you want the corners to cover the begining of 
the edges, or do you want the edge-images to always start display on their 
first pixel?)
While borders which can be moved up and down, side-to-side, along the 
"border line", could potentially lead to some really pretty pages, it 
sounds like it would become more complicated than it would be worth.

Now keep in mind, I'm not saying we should abandon the 16-image model, but 
just as you can specify borders with only 8 images, I think borders would 
do well to have 8, 16, or 24.

Of course it could be taken in an entirely different direction-> use as 
many or as few images as you want, specify the width, anchor, and 
repeat-values however you wish. Hey, even allow content other than images 
to be used as borders, have a marquee of text dancing around your 
content... But these are the things I'm talking about when I say "it 
doesnt make sense to try and make everyone happy". Even though it would be 
great to have the option of specifying a border exactly how you want to, 
there is a need to place a limit somewhere (unless there's some CSS-script 
or such in the works that I'm not aware of).
Somebody probably thought "Nobody would want more than 16 images", I'm 
here to say that I dont think anybody would want more than 24.

Using 16 images and allowing them to fill in from the corners sounds 
great- so long as you're talking about allowing them to move inward, and 
not forcing them to start at the corner. Hey, perhaps I spoke too soon, 
what we really need is 48 images! 256 images!
Okay, the numbers go up quickly. I'd say that this is worth talking more 
about.. Perhaps I dont understand exactly what kind of syntax you'd be 
talking about someone having to type. (I'm not entirely familiar with the 
way overflow works. I think I get the idea, but I guess I'm just not sure 
on what has precedent, and how you'd specify the justification 
[left-align? right-align?])

But perhaps I've said way too much. I really didnt mean to type such a 
long message, sorry about that.. but hey, I probably only conveyed a 
half-paragraph's worth of information, so that's what counts, right?

Vincent Starre
Received on Saturday, 17 January 2004 20:13:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:10 UTC