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

Re: [css3-background] misc. feedback

From: Bert Bos <bert@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 20:15:26 +0100
To: Larry Israel <lisrael@cruzio.com>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
Message-Id: <200502242015.27167.bert@w3.org>

On Wednesday 16 February 2005 23:32, Larry Israel wrote:
> Here is some miscellaneous feedback from a web developer as I read
> through the CSS3 Backgrounds and Borders Module.
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-css3-background-20050216
>
> Overall, I'm thrilled with this proposal! Wonderful to have multiple
> backgrounds on an element, and a simple way to get
> complex/interesting borders via 'border-image' and 'border-radius'.
>
> The following are just ideas. Take them or leave them; you may find
> some are worth following through:
>
> 5. The 'background-image' property
>      If 'background-repeat' or 'background-position' has more
>      comma-separated values than 'background-image',
>      the series of values is repeated as needed."
> I suggest moving that text as well as the example and red notes that
> follow it. I think this content would more appropriately be placed in
> section 13 Layering multiple background images.

Yes, that is an editing error. Section 13 is meant for that information, 
but I forgot to remove the redundant text.

>
> 7. The 'background-attachment' property
>      ... in the case of 'scroll', the background does not scroll
>      with the element's content.
> This seems counter-intuitive. How about reversing the values, so that
> a 'scroll' background scrolls with the element's content, and
> 'no-scroll' (perhaps, rather than 'local') does not.

That will be difficult. 'Scroll' exists in CSS levels 1 and 2 and has 
been implemented a certain way. The description can be better, though. 
In fact, 'scroll' causes the background to scroll with the element's 
containing block and 'local' with the element's content.

>
> 9. The 'background-clip' property
> It may be useful to clarify (say) that the border (if present) is
> layered in front of any backgrounds.

CSS3 will have the equivalent of appendix E ("Elaborate description of 
Stacking Contexts") of CSS 2.1, but it hasn't been published yet. At 
some point this module will have a pointer to it.

I'll add a note anyway. That can't hurt.

>
> 11. The 'background-size' property
> Other ideas for the value now named 'round':
> nocrop, nocut, or noclip.
> (These are somewhat similar conceptually to 'nowrap'.) If specified
> separately for height and width, could use 'nocrop-x' and 'nocrop-y'.

I see the reasoning. We'll see what word emerges.

But note that

    background-size: 50% 50% noclip;
    background-position: center;

*will* clip the images. For example:

    ################
    #  | |    | |  #
    #--' `----' `--#
    #--. .----. .--#
    #  | |    | |  #
    #  | |    | |  #
    #--' `----' `--#
    #--. .----. .--#
    #  | |    | |  #
    ################

where

    .----.
    |    |
    |    |
    `----'

is the image.

>
> 12. The 'background-break' property
> 1) The term "pages" is used here (and in section 3) without a
> definition. My assumptions are that (a) "pages" refers only to print
> media (and other "paged media," whatever that may mean); and (b)
> "pages" is defined in some other module(s). You may want to clarify
> some of this with a cross reference.

Yes.

> 2) How about 'container' instead of 'bounding-box', and 'each'
> instead of 'each-box'. Or maybe 'parent' and 'child', or 'outer' and
> 'inner' have a use as values? (Note, however, that I don't fully
> understand this section yet; no fault of the authors.)

Container might introduce confusion with containing block. I'm not sure 
'each' is any clearer than 'each-box'.

>
> 14. The 'background' property
> In the example, it says:
>      The first rule is equivalent to:
>      body {
>          background-color: red;
>          [...]
>          background-size: 30% 30%;
> Shouldn't that be background-size: auto; (or "auto auto").

Yes, you're right.

>
> 19. The 'border-radius' properties
> Some examples would be nice.
> And is 'border-radius' a shorthand property?

Yes, it is. I'll add it.

>
> 22. The 'box-shadow' property
> I think this is missing a width value that would specify how
> wide/thick the shadow will be. The width should be independent of
> either the offset (x/y) or the bluring.

The shadow is as wide as the element it is a shadow of.



Bert
-- 
  Bert Bos                                ( W 3 C ) http://www.w3.org/
  http://www.w3.org/people/bos                               W3C/ERCIM
  bert@w3.org                             2004 Rt des Lucioles / BP 93
  +33 (0)4 92 38 76 92            06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France
Received on Thursday, 24 February 2005 19:15:38 GMT

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