W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > November 2007

Re: [CSS] Expandable background images, proposal

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 01:28:27 -0500
Message-ID: <4749160B.1070908@inkedblade.net>
To: www-style <www-style@w3.org>

Andrew Fedoniouk wrote:
> fantasai wrote:
>> Andrew Fedoniouk wrote:
>>> background-repeat:expand; is defined here:
>>> http://www.terrainformatica.com/wiki/doku.php?id=h-smile:expandable-backgrounds 
>> How is this different from the current 'border-image' proposal?
>>   http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-css3-background-20050216/#the-border-image
> Differences are:
> First of all: my proposal does not require new attributes like 
> border-image you have mentioned.

But it significantly complicates existing properties, so I think that's a

> Second: I am using single image for background and borders. As far as 
> understand the border-image in the way it is defined is mutually 
> exclusive with background-image. Or probably I do not understand its 
> idea enough? E.g. what comes first: rendering of such border-image or 
> rendering of the background-image? As far as I understand either one of 
> them shall be drawn on top of another. So what is the point to use them 
> both?

The border-image image is drawn over the background, not instead of it.
This allows the possibility of having an image *border* (with a transparent
center) rather than an expandable image while also having an image
background that is positioned or tiled as appropriate behind it.

> Usually such expandable borders and background is really a single entity 
> from graphical design perspective so it is better to define them as a 
> single image.

Right, and that's how border-image works as well.

> Expandable image is really a background image by its concept.

It depends on the usage. In the fancy orange button case, yes. But in many
other cases such as in your first example it is only a border.

> E.g. it is rendered as normal background - in padding box of the element 
> so can coexist with existing borders. The border-image is again mutually 
> exclusive with borders: "Specifies an image to use instead of the border 
> styles given by the 'border-style' properties". This is too limiting.

How is it limiting? What use cases do you have that does it not address?

> The same thing with the 'round' modifier. To be used practically such 
> roundness shall be implemented as a constraint of dimensions of border 
> box of the element. In the way it is defined in the border-image it is 
> not useful at all.

Why is it not useful at all?

Received on Sunday, 25 November 2007 06:28:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:31 UTC