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 16:45:30 -0600
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, www-style@w3.org
Message-id: <909768AF-1C29-47A9-AD24-1EF9783323C6@apple.com>

I don't like background-resize either.  In the case of images with no  
intrinsic size (e.g., SVG), you aren't resizing.  You're just setting  
an explicit size.  I don't see any issue with the name background- 
size.  I don't think it's confusing at all.

dave

On Jan 18, 2008, at 4:13 PM, fantasai wrote:

>
> 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.
>
> ~fantasai
>
Received on Friday, 18 January 2008 22:45:46 GMT

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