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

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

From: Grey Hodge <grey@thecloudygroup.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 17:09:12 -0500
Message-ID: <47912388.6080304@thecloudygroup.com>
To: www-style@w3.org

On 1/18/2008 3:24 PM David Hyatt cranked up the brainbox and said:
> 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.

Given that, and the other arguments, background-resize or background-sizing
would be more accurate. Then an argument of none is implicitly logical, as is
a larger or smaller size. What is the resize value? None, 0, or even 100%, not
resized. Resize it to 150% or 25%, etc.

> dave
> (hyatt@apple.com)
> 
> 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
>>
> 
> 
> 


-- 
Grey Hodge
 email [ grey @ thecloudygroup.com ]
 web   [ http://www.thecloudygroup.com ]
 motto [ Make everything as simple as possible, but no simpler. - Einstein ]
Received on Friday, 18 January 2008 22:10:14 GMT

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