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

Re: [CSS3 Backgrounds and Borders] Proposal for combining border-break and background-break

From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 10:17:45 -0700
Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "www-style@w3.org list" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-Id: <FDF1F28B-94BF-4E71-BD3E-3BBA28D49491@gmail.com>
To: David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com>

On Jul 23, 2009, at 2:32 PM, David Hyatt wrote:

> On Jul 23, 2009, at 3:08 PM, fantasai wrote:
>> Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>>>> (2) The ability to specify bounding-box coverage for backgrounds.
>>>>      - My proposal here is to scrap this feature.
>>>>      - I do not see a use case for placing a background into the  
>>>> bounding
>>>> box.   That just seems like it would give unusual results for  
>>>> both inlines
>>>> and columns.  Columns broken across pages would be even stranger.
>>> I definitely see the use for this ability, but it's nothing that  
>>> can't
>>> be done by putting a background on a container element instead.  I'd
>> Putting a background on the container element would get you a very  
>> different
>> effect.
>> The bounding-box effect is similar to the tables example here:
>> http://fantasai.inkedblade.net/style/discuss/table-backgrounds/edge.gif
>> Imagine we just have the first row, and each box is a column rather  
>> than
>> a table cell.
>> Here's the concept rendering for that image:
>> http://fantasai.inkedblade.net/style/discuss/table-backgrounds/edge-d.gif
> Yeah, that's not a particularly compelling use case to me.  The  
> background broken up by spacing between the columns just looks weird  
> to me... the effect would be prettier if the background had just  
> been on the container and didn't just vanish between the columns.

A horizontal gradient might be a little more compelling as a use case,  
if the gradient is meant to align with a non-broken box above or below  
it. The effect in fantasai's example might also look less weird if  
there was another background image (such as a ghosted version) on the  
whole container which it aligned with.

But in general, I share David Hyatt's concern that the advantages of  
having two properties may not outweigh the extra complexity. A single  
property would be simpler and more intuitive in use.

>> What bounding-box does is draw a rectangle that includes all pieces  
>> of
>> the element--without moving those pieces around--and then clips out  
>> the
>> parts of the background that are needed to inside the element's  
>> boxes.
>> You can see some interesting effects with gradients. See
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009Apr/0131.html
> Yeah, I know what it does.  I'm just arguing that it's not  
> particularly useful (and would look especially funny with inlines).

I wonder if "bounding-box" can be a value for "background-clip", where  
it would act the same as "border-box", except in cases involving  
broken boxes and "box-break: each-box"? I haven't put a lot of thought  
into this idea yet, but it seems like it would work, be simpler than  
the current draft, and satisfy most or all use cases. 
Received on Tuesday, 28 July 2009 17:18:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:27 UTC