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: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 03:24:36 -0500
Message-ID: <4791B3C4.1030204@inkedblade.net>
To: molly@molly.com
CC: www-style@w3.org

Molly E. Holzschlag wrote:
> 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.

Well, you probably would be resizing the image most of the time when you use
this property.

> Alternate suggestions:
> background-fill  (this one is pretty darned intuitive)

I'm not seeing this one. If I were guessing, I'd think it means "ways to
take this image and make it fill the background area", not "size to make
image before using it as a tile".

> 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.

Yeah, that was my concern.

Received on Saturday, 19 January 2008 08:24:52 UTC

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