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

Re: [css3-background], comments on 'border-radius'

From: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 15:58:04 -0800
Message-ID: <009b01c51871$2f064bc0$c302000a@internal.toppro.net>
To: <www-style@w3.org>

>> Under the light of border-image: do we need border-radius at all?
>
> Sure.
>
>> I think that specialized tools like XaraX will produce better bitmaps
>
> Sure, but these would be resolution dependent, whereas browser generated
> round corners scale well. Furthermore every image means an additional
> request and transfer for IMO little benefit.

Ok. Let's add then other forms of borders like curved, etc.
Let's add various types of hatch backgrounds as they scale better....

When we will stop adding partial solutions?

If you want something which scales well you'd better use:
background-image:url(my-vector-borders-and-background.SVG )

If you don't want additional roundtrips to the server you'd better allow CSS
to be placed in multipart files together with images used. Anyway such 
images are
parts of style sheet and not parts of the content.

---------------------
Does anybody counts *number* of attibutes existing and proposed?
As for now there are far more than one hundred in CSS table.
Almost quarter of them can interfere with each other creating non-manageable 
number
of test cases and exceptions in documentation "but if ... and ... or ... 
then ... only if container is ... end next element is"

My point is simple: If we need to, we should add one feature which covers 
three such "half-features" for the sake of KISS at least.

BTW: why just do not define a minimal subset of SVG (no CSS and no script - 
pure graphics) and to use it as a
background-image?

Andrew Fedoniouk.
http://terrainformatica.com
Received on Monday, 21 February 2005 23:58:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:35 GMT