On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 2:14 PM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote: > Brad Kemper wrote: >> >>> border-image: url(Aladdins_Lamp.png) 4 125 141 44 // 0px 14px 12px >>> 27px / stretch round; >> >> Yes, that works for me (except no third slash before the "stretch round" >> part). Note that currently in the WD, omitting the second set of numbers >> means that the image border width will be equal to the border-width property >> value, which is much less useful that just having a 1 to 1 correspondence >> between image pixels and CSS pixels. > > It depends on what you're trying to do and whether you're using vector > images or not. If you want to give the border some texture but not to give > it shape, then you'd want to match the border-width. I can see the > usefulness of an easy way to say "use the intrinsic size", but I think > there should also be a way to say "use the given border-width". > > I'll note that we probably also want to allow percentages for the > border-image widths here. How difficult is it to have a keyword *or* a set of lengths there? Just slap in "intrinsic" and "border" (with "intrinsic" being the default when nothing is specified), and we've got it. Taking it just a touch further, make *each length* replacable by one of those keywords. That way you can, say, have the sides take on the border-width, while the top and bottom take on specified, or intrinsic, widths. If there are less than four length/keywords, the missing ones are inferred the normal way (L take R, B takes T, R takes T). Agreed on percentages. I'm not certain why border widths ever dropped support for percentages. ~TJReceived on Wednesday, 1 April 2009 20:52:56 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 18:16:10 GMT