W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2005

Re: [css3-background] comments

From: Slalomsk8er <slalomsk8er@solnet.ch>
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 12:58:38 +0200
Message-ID: <425906DE.4020208@solnet.ch>
To: W3C CSS List <www-style@w3.org>

> * 11. The 'background-size' property
>
> I'm not sure if this is useful at all. I don't see that a stretched --
> it is a better name, indeed -- image could work out nice and I expect
> authors to not take advantages of the possiblities. This also
> introduces complexity for UAs and all kinds of rounding issues/errors.
> I suggest marking this as a feature at risk if it is desired by the WG
> to keep it.


I hated the W3C for not having this in the "old" CSS specifications.
Half a year ago i was working a week to make a cool concept work with
out background-size. It was a sucker fish menu with changing menu sizes
if you go over them (hard to miss menu). For my own homepage I work on a
absolute scalable page but background images do not scale. A fit Image
to background option or define it with '*em*', was what I did not found
to my frustration. As for complexity/issues/errors, first use bilinear
interpolation (this looks best) next IMHO it s better to put the
complexity at the end of the browser maker then at the users/authors end
and rounding issues/errors I do not get my brain to see the problem
(please explain).

"I expect authors to not take advantages of the possibilities" Authors
take advantage of what ever gets the job done!


Thanks, Dominik

PS: Some times the pixel look is wanted. Why send a picture that has 16
pixel per visible pixel (color area)? Just scale it!
Received on Sunday, 10 April 2005 10:55:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:36 GMT