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

Re: [CSS3] foreground-image

From: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2007 12:20:59 -0700
Message-ID: <008101c7f24d$65eb6e00$0701a8c0@TERRA>
To: "fantasai" <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Cc: <www-style@w3.org>

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "fantasai" <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
To: "Andrew Fedoniouk" <news@terrainformatica.com>
Cc: <www-style@w3.org>
Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2007 12:08 AM
Subject: Re: [CSS3] foreground-image

> Andrew Fedoniouk wrote:
>> David Baron wrote: 
>>> I'd rather have something like:
>>>  content: image(url(foo.png), 25, 25, 300, 300);
>>> as proposed in comments 3 and 4 of:
>>>  https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=113577
>>> that would apply to all properties that deal with images
>>> (background-image, list-style-image, etc.).
>> This is out of scope of  foreground-image per se but anyway...
>> What will happen if image does not support pixel cropping
>> in principle? SVG for example. And I think croping of jpegs and a-gifs 
>> is also not a good idea.
> SVG has a coordinate system, so pixel references in this sense
> would work just fine. David's suggestion could also just as
> easily use percentages as an alternative form.

Sorry, but your understanding of SVG coordinate
systems appears as not exact.   

Back to image slicing:

Constructions like 

image(url(foo.png), 25, 25, 300, 300);

make sense only for purely bitmap images where
numbers 25, 25, 300, 300 correspond to 
to physical bimap pixels - so to PNG and non-animated

I understand motivation of having image slices
but think that it can be achieved by 
using #fragment-id part of the URL for its direct


So foo.png#25,25,00,300 identifies fragment in foo.png

Did I miss something in principle?

Andrew Fedoniouk.
Received on Saturday, 8 September 2007 19:22:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:30 UTC