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

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

From: David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 14:41:23 -0600
To: "Molly E. Holzschlag" <molly@molly.com>
Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, www-style@w3.org
Message-id: <3CF18F6C-FCDD-4513-A38A-BC092A8242CF@apple.com>

On Jan 26, 2008, at 4:49 PM, Molly E. Holzschlag wrote:

>
> 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 :)
>

Fill does not seem like the correct term to me.  What exactly are you  
filling?  Whether or not the tile repeats or not (e.g., background- 
repeat) seems more like the "fill" property to me.  All background- 
size does is set an explicit tile size (where that tile may or may not  
be repeated) rather than using the intrinsic size of the image.

This property's name is fine.  This is such a non-issue.

dave
(hyatt@apple.com)
Received on Monday, 28 January 2008 20:41:44 GMT

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