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

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

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 22:50:25 +0100
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.t45ayba864w2qv@annevk-t60.oslo.opera.com>

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 21:17:37 +0100, fantasai  
<fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> 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.

I agree with David Hyatt. background-size is clearer name and we already  
have various background-* properties specifically for the background  
image, such as background-position, background-repeat and  
background-attachment so I don't think it will be interpreted as being for  
something else.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Friday, 18 January 2008 21:47:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:58 GMT