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, 26 Jan 2008 11:22:55 -0800
Message-ID: <479B888F.9040000@inkedblade.net>
To: molly@molly.com
CC: www-style@w3.org

Molly E. Holzschlag 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.

How about 'background-fit', would that make sense?

(We could also add the 'fill', 'contain', and 'cover' keywords from the 'image-fit' proposal.)
   http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-page/img_scale.png

~fantasai
Received on Saturday, 26 January 2008 19:23:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:55:00 GMT