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

Re: [CSSWG] Minutes and Resolutions 2009-02-04: box-shadow and border-image

From: David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 19:51:39 -0600
Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-id: <55824DD4-6E02-4BD3-B56E-6DB1DAF708F1@apple.com>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>

On Feb 12, 2009, at 7:22 PM, fantasai wrote:

>
> BTW, Hyatt, on a tangential note.. does Webkit implement this part
>  # If the slash is present in the property value, the one to four
>  # values after it are used for the width of the border instead of
>  # the ‘border-width’ properties (but only if the specified image
>  # can be displayed).
> and is its effect on layout desired or should it merely be a graphical
> thing?


I assume you're asking if WebKit handles  "(but only if the specified  
image can be displayed)."  No, we don't.  I don't like that part of  
the spec.

We just always set the border widths, and don't check to see if the  
image has loaded first.  I don't see any situation where the author  
would actually want the border box to change size if the image fails  
to load.

Right now our behavior while a border image is loading is to just not  
draw any border.  That way the image just pops in like any other image  
on a page.  If the image fails to load, then we'll go ahead and  
display the fallback border.  I don't like the idea of selectively  
honoring the widths specified by border-image, since prior to the  
image loading, you'd want to honor the image's widths anyway.  
Otherwise you could do a size jump on a successful load, and that  
would be lame.

The widths specified by border-image should just always be honored so  
as not to create a trap for authors to fall into.

dave
(hyatt@apple.com)
Received on Friday, 13 February 2009 01:52:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:16 GMT