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: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 06:54:51 +1000
Message-Id: <C78790B6-1863-4047-9412-9F044D9E3EFB@molly.com>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>

I still think background-fill is more intuitive to the designer mind,  
but given the example you showed re: fit, I think that would work as  
an option, too. It's surely better than the use of size, which simply  
is not an accurate description of what is being done.

Molly :)


On Jan 27, 2008, at 5:22 AM, fantasai wrote:

> 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 20:55:06 GMT

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