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

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

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 17:13:59 -0500
Message-ID: <479124A7.20101@inkedblade.net>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
CC: www-style@w3.org

Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> 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.
> 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.

We also have background-clip and background-origin, which set parameters
on what to interpret as the boundaries of the background area.

 > I agree with David Hyatt. background-size is clearer name

Web designers need terms that are more evocative even if they are less
exact. E.g. we picked 'image-position' as a name instead of
'replaced-element-position' even though it applies to plugins and other
replaced elements, not just images, because it allows designers to more
easily relate to what it means. I think either "background-stretch" or
"background-resize" would be more likely to suggest the right idea than
the current term.

This is really a question for web designers, though, not for us.

Received on Friday, 18 January 2008 22:14:10 UTC

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