Håkon Wium Lie wrote: > Also sprach fantasai: > > > > So, how about placing the background from the 'border-image' be at the > > > bottom of the stack instead? Or, perhaps even simpler, just clip the > > > middle part of the borders image (the one rectangle which is not used > > > as a border)? > > > > If it's really an issue, we can add an 'empty' keyword to trigger > > omitting the center part of the image. Or change the behavior and > > have 'fill' require filling the middle. > > A new keyword could fix it. But it's expensive to change the syntax at > this point. How is it expensive to change the syntax? It's still a Working Draft, not even Last Call! And it's /adding/ a keyword, not changing any existing syntax. > How about just changing the stacking order so that the border-image goes > to the bottom? We can't do that. Backgrounds paint into the border region by default. Borders sit on top of that. It wouldn't make any sense for border-image to paint below that. > This would allow my code to work as expected: > > div { > background: black; > border-image: url(picture.jpg) 125 125 125 125 stretch stretch; > } That wouldn't work, it would make everything black. ~fantasaiReceived on Monday, 26 January 2009 21:17:11 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 18:16:01 GMT