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

Background-size & stretching RE: [css3-background] A few points about the current module

From: Paul Duncan <paul.duncan@marketpipe.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 12:38:04 +0100
To: "'Kelly Miller'" <lightsolphoenix@gmail.com>, <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <E1E0e3e-0007m1-Qi@lisa.w3.org>

> From: On Behalf Of Kelly Miller
> To: www-style@w3.org
>
> Background-size & stretching
>
>     I believe that background-stretch would be a better name for this 
> property, if for no other reason than it's more telling of the property's
> true effect on background images.  


I recently fed back a similar request.

Naming the property Background-size confuses the issue and leads to
unintuitive behaviour. 
If I want a background image to stretch to fill the area I would not expect
to write "background-size: 100%". Logically to me 100% would imply that the
background image size should be its real size and original aspect ratio.
Whereas "background-size: auto" implies to my the image will automatically
stretch to fill the available area?

So in my opinion the property should as you asked be renamed
background-stretch with values.

Rowan Lewis said:
On that note, I like Paul Duncan's 'background-stretch' implementation but
it would be better to allow something more like this:

None (the default)
	no stretch
Auto
	Stretches x and y to fill the area
Length XY | Length XY
	A specific size.
Percentage XY | Percentage X Percentage Y - 
	The percentage is relative to the width or height of the area given
by 'background-origin'.
Only the value none would ever have to apply to both X and Y, you should
also be able to use 'auto' for either X or Y.


Regards
Paul Duncan.
Received on Thursday, 4 August 2005 11:38:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:39 GMT