W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > January 2008

Re: [css3-background] background-size vs background-stretch

From: David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 14:24:28 -0600
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
Message-id: <81D2DF6F-5928-4AFD-BCF4-BE2E1FB2A306@apple.com>

I think background-size is a better name.  You are specifying the size  
of the background image tile(s).  Stretch implies growth.   You can  
actually specify a size that is smaller than the intrinsic size of the  
image, in which case you aren't stretching.  You're shrinking.


On Jan 18, 2008, at 2:17 PM, fantasai wrote:

> A comment in the spec says:
> # Is ‘background-stretch’ a better name? People also suggested to use
> # ‘background-stretch: none’ instead of ‘auto’ in that case.
> I think we should go with 'background-stretch'. It gives a clearer
> idea of what the property does: background-size could be interpreted
> as setting the size of the background area, not the size of the image.
> I'd keep 'auto' as the initial value though, especially since scalable
> images (aspect ratio, no height/width) will always be stretched.
> ~fantasai
Received on Friday, 18 January 2008 20:24:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:33 UTC