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: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 10:12:43 -0700
Cc: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>, 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: <F0058B4F-11E4-4C58-8C88-E91BDFBF7C96@gmail.com>
To: Giovanni Campagna <scampa.giovanni@gmail.com>

On Mar 30, 2009, at 8:02 AM, Giovanni Campagna wrote:

> 2009/3/30 Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>:
>>> And yet. There are elements already that have foreground-image that
>>> can coexist with background image. <img> and <object> in HTML as an
>>> example. It is nice to have ability in CSS to define where
>>> and how foreground-image is rendered in at least <img>.
>> I agree. It doesn't have much to do with my proposed changes, and  
>> you will
>> find the idea controversial from the standpoint of many people  
>> considering
>> IMG to be content instead of styling, but I agree with you on that.
>>> Such attributes as 'image-orientation' [1] should go to the
>>> foreground-*** attribute set. And the 'fit' [2] is just one
>>> more value of
>>> foreground-repeat: no-repeat | repeat | fill | meet | slice | etc.
>> If there was a foreground-image property, I imagine it would share  
>> a lot
>> with background-image.
>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-page/#image-orientation
>>> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-page/#fit
> Please note that there exists a "foreground-image" property, just it
> has been called "content: url();" (and creates replaced element, to
> which the fit property applies).

That's an excellent point. Thus Andrew's glowing lamp could be  
inserted with 'content' and absolutely positioned at the bottom right  
(or floated with some negative margins).

> But there is a subtle difference between images (or general replaced
> content, including videos or animations) as content and images used
> for decorations.

I alluded to that, but know also that a huge number of IMG content is  
just decoration and not vital content. But I don't think we need to  
have that discussion sidetrack this one too much.

> The latter are just part of the background (in the
> semantic sense, non in the styling sense) of the element.
> Therefore, instead of "foreground-everything", I propose
> Property: background-stacking
> Value: top | bottom [, [top | bottom] ]*
> Initial: bottom
> Specifies if the background should be drawn below the content (as  
> now) or above.

It's not really a background if it is in front, and is that really  
needed if you have 'content:url()'? Or did you mean that 'background- 
stacking' would apply to 'border-image' too? Or you would have 'border- 
stacking'? Even there, it does not seem that important to have borders  
that are in front of content.
Received on Monday, 30 March 2009 17:13:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:25 UTC