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

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

From: Molly E. Holzschlag <molly@molly.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 17:43:11 -0700
To: "'fantasai'" <fantasai@inkedblade.net>
Cc: <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000001c85a34$451a2640$cf4e72c0$@com>

I think background-size or background-sizing would be the more intuitive for most designers and developers for the reason that background-stretch or resize implies that you must be stretching or resizing when that simply isn't the true meaning of the property.

Alternate suggestions:

background-fill  (this one is pretty darned intuitive)
background-image-size (very clear, but not very elegant)

Between background-size or background-sizing I prefer background-sizing as I feel background-size is too broad and could imply to the unschooled designer that they can alter the size of the actual background with this property, not just what is filling it.

FWIW,
M


-=-
Molly E. Holzschlag
Web Standards and Practices Education and Outreach
Molly.Com, Inc.

http://molly.com/
Received on Saturday, 19 January 2008 00:43:25 GMT

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