Re: [gcpm] border-parts

Also sprach Tab Atkins Jr.:

 > Of course, this isn't my baby, it's Hakon's.  Hakon, I propose dropping the
 > repeat() keyword.  We need some form of flex unit to achieve the examples
 > you have, but repeat() as-it-is-currently-written is *almost* incompatible
 > with flexes.  At the very least, it renders them irrelevant except for
 > filling in the occasional pixel gap.  In order to make repeat() compatible
 > with flex units, we'd have to introduce a lot more complexity than currently
 > exists (a length argument to repeat(), multiple levels of flex).  I think
 > that right now we are best served by simply having a border-parts with a
 > flex unit, and then coming up with a border-dashes property that can address
 > the issue of repeat blocks more naturally.  This will make the property
 > simpler and more easily implemented, and provide a good structure for a
 > future comprehensive fancy-border treatment.

I'm ok with dropping repeat(). As a result the proposal would be
simpler, which is good. Some functionality would be lost, but nothing
I can't live without.

Any opposing votes?

-h&kon
              Håkon Wium Lie                          CTO °þe®ª
howcome@opera.com                  http://people.opera.com/howcome