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

Re: [Backgrounds/Borders] What to do when a border-image fails to load

From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2009 22:18:55 -0700
Cc: David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Bert Bos <bert@w3.org>, "www-style@w3.org list" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-Id: <25FDDBFD-F99E-44A7-89DE-AA7A43CFC8C8@gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>

On Mar 29, 2009, at 9:48 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:

>> I suspect in the vast majority of cases that authors would use them  
>> as I
>> have, so it is somewhat unsatisfying to me to have to type them out  
>> in order
>> to get to the third set of numbers. Perhaps the third set of  
>> numbers should
>> be preceded by something other than a slash (a double slash  
>> maybe?), so that
>> the second set can just default to 1 image pixel = 1px.
>
> Perhaps we can just allow it to be omitted, but still require that
> both of the slashes appear if you're specifying offsets?  So in the
> final example it would look like:
>
> border-image: url(Aladdins_Lamp.png) 4 125 141 44 // 0px 14px 12px
> 27px / stretch round;

Yes, that works for me (except no third slash before the "stretch  
round" part). Note that currently in the WD, omitting the second set  
of numbers means that the image border width will be equal to the  
border-width property value, which is much less useful that just  
having a 1 to 1 correspondence between image pixels and CSS pixels.

> I suppose this is basically identical to what you've said, except that
> a single slash is still used when all elements are specified.  I don't
> know if that's worth it; it may be better to just use a double slash
> or whatever.

No,I like your version. I suspect it would be easier to parse too.
Received on Monday, 30 March 2009 05:19:35 GMT

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