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

Re: Background Size (was: Re: Please explain why we need multiple background images)

From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@iinet.net.au>
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 19:33:40 +1100
Message-ID: <419869E4.5040003@iinet.net.au>
To: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
CC: www-style <www-style@w3.org>

Andrew Fedoniouk wrote:
>  background-repeat:expand; /* or -h-smile-expand, whatever you like */

See 'background-size' [1]. eg.

   background-size: 100% 100%;

That, I think, would look identical to your expand value, is far more 
sensible, and it is being defined in the CSS3 backgrounds module. 
Though, if you're going to implement that, then it should also use a 
vendor prefix, at least until the module becomes a candidate 
recommendation and implementations are called for.  That is to avoid a 
situation where your implementation becomes non-conformant when the spec 
changes.

The vendor prefix should not be optional on any proprietary extensions 
you implement, at least until such properties are defined a CSS 
recommendation, and, ideally, have been implemented correctly according 
to their definition.

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-background/#background-size0

-- 
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/
http://GetFirefox.com/    Rediscover the Web
http://SpreadFirefox.com/   Igniting the Web
Received on Monday, 15 November 2004 08:34:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:34 GMT