On Mar 29, 2009, at 1:35 PM, David Hyatt wrote: > On Mar 29, 2009, at 2:40 AM, Brad Kemper wrote: > >> I written up a proposal that I think solves this problem, plus a >> couple others that I think are even bigger for authors. I'd >> appreciate it if everyone could take a look and let me know what >> you think. In the following link, I describe three problems >> (including this one), and a nice solution that I would love to see >> implemented: >> >> http://www.bradclicks.com/cssplay/border-image/Thinking_Outside_The_Box.html >> >> > > I really love this proposal. > > I can't implement it in WebKit until we drop the -webkit-, since it > would break content all over OS X. :) The problem being of course > that apps use -webkit-border-image and expect it to specify the > border widths. Since the images are guaranteed to be present (OS X > resources after all), they didn't bother with fallback border > widths. Therefore changing the -webkit- version of the property to > match this proposal isn't really possible. (I guess I could make a - > webkit2-border-image... LOL) I was afraid you were going to say that. I wouldn't mind a '-webkit2- border-image' if that's what it took. Or the property can be renamed as 'image-border' (which seems more natural to me anyway), and you can -webkit- prefix that. > [...] > Should negative offsets be allowed for (b)? I don't see why not, > but just thought I'd ask, since your proposal doesn't really say one > way or the other. I did think about that too after I posted it. I think negative offsets should be allowed, and could be useful for pushing the border images further into the padding-box/content-box area. I don't have any problem with that. > > Anyway, I think this proposal is great and hope the WG will adopt it. :) > > dave > (hyatt@apple.com) >Received on Monday, 30 March 2009 01:29:35 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 18:16:07 GMT