W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2009

Re: [CSS3] border-radius, border-image and drawing order.

From: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 13:28:33 -0700
Message-ID: <4A871A71.9030700@terrainformatica.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 2:33 PM, Andrew
> Fedoniouk<news@terrainformatica.com> wrote:
>> Consider following style and markup:
>>
>> div
>>    {
>>      width:100px; height:100px;
>>      border-width:4px;
>>      border-color:red;
>>      border-radius:50%; /* that means border is a
>>                            perfect circle */
>>      border-style:solid;
>>    }
>>
>> <div>Some text</div>
>>
>> Shall border be drawn on top of the text or behind it?
>> That is the question.
>>
>> If border is a part of background as current spec implies
>> then text should be drawn on top of the border.
> 
> Borders are drawn above the background, but under the text.
> 
>> But what about border-image?
>> If it is drawn behind the content layer then
>> this border-image makes almost no practical sense.
> 
> Border-image is drawn on the same layer as borders.  Borders are
> hidden while a border-image is in effect.
> 
> Could you elaborate on why the border-image being drawn below text is
> a problem?  Is this also a problem for normal borders?

Imagine that text in the third column here:
http://www.bradclicks.com/cssplay/border-image/Alladins_Lamp_2.png
will contain couple of more lines. For now they will be drawn on top
of the lamp that is unexpected.

> 
>> Why not to use that multi-background feature and
>> to drop this border-image completely then?
> 
> One of the original reasons multiple-backgrounds were used *was* to do
> essentially the same thing as border-image is currently doing.  It's
> rather nasty when you actually start writing the code, though.  The
> actual property can get *really* long and complex, you have to design
> a single image and then slice it into multiple separate images, and it
> can cause up to 9 network requests.  Border-image solves all of that
> by letting you create a single image, specify how to slice it in the
> CSS, and wrap it all up in a relatively simple syntax.

Why not to add such slicing/sectioning to any background image then?

I suspect that we need either
1) multi-background images or
2) single background image and the border-image

But not both.

We have multiple features that serve the same purpose -
drawing image(s) on the background in various ways.

Usually such feature redundancy is one of ringing bells of
bad design.

> 
> Another benefit of the current border-image proposal is that it allows
> you to paint outside of the actual box geometry.  The benefits of this
> are clearly explain with a great example over at Brad's site:
> http://www.bradclicks.com/cssplay/border-image/Thinking_Outside_The_Box.html
> 

"to paint outside of the actual box geometry"

That simply means that borders of the element are drawn on top of its 
siblings but not on top of its children. That makes the logic even worse.

> ~TJ
> 


-- 
Andrew Fedoniouk.

http://terrainformatica.com
Received on Saturday, 15 August 2009 20:29:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:20 GMT