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

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

From: Graham Bishop <graham.bishop@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 16:54:22 +0000
Message-ID: <8365675e0801210854g26fd06eav61c1f1660dae47dd@mail.gmail.com>
To: molly@molly.com
Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, www-style@w3.org
I would agree on background-fill or background-image-fill over
background-sizing.

To me background-sizing or background-size relates more to the box element
then the actual image or content that is in it. As a designer
background-fill will always imply to the actual image or colour used in the
background box.

*g

On Jan 19, 2008 3:53 PM, Molly E. Holzschlag <molly@molly.com> wrote:

>
> If we agree that background-size essentially means "take this background
> image and make it fill this much of the background area"
>
> Sounds like background-image-size to me.
>
> background-fill or background-image-fill would still make sense from a
> design perspective in my opinion. Definitely more so than background-size
> which makes me simply think I can literally size the background any way I
> want, which clearly isn't what we're expressing here.
>
> :)
> M
> -=-
> Molly E. Holzschlag
> Web Standards and Practices Education and Outreach
> Molly.Com, Inc.
>
> http://molly.com/
>
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 23 January 2008 04:16:26 GMT

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