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: David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 19:21:21 -0500
Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Bert Bos <bert@w3.org>, "www-style@w3.org list" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-id: <615873BB-7A7D-44D8-9388-C74BD6FD247D@apple.com>
To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
On Mar 30, 2009, at 7:04 PM, Brad Kemper wrote:

> How about if for the pixels falling outside the regular border-box,  
> only totally opaque pixels would be hit/hover targets, and all  
> others would be considered a purely decorative effect? That would be  
> the ideal, IMHO, as it would allow images of shadows, glows, clouds,  
> puffs of smoke, etc. to be ignored as hit targets. Otherwise, if it  
> is all or nothing for pixels outside the box, I would lean towards  
> nothing, treating them as a purely decorative effect, like box-shadow.

My preference is that the border-image's box is just a decorative  
effect and that hit testing should use the normal border box.  I would  
expect even the border-radius to be included in such hit testing, and  
simply assume that the border-image is conceptually going to follow  
that curve closely (even if it isn't clipped when rendering so that it  
can produce visual frills outside the curve).

I really get why you didn't want border-image to clip to the border- 
radius now with this new proposal of yours.  I agree with that now,  
with the understanding that hit testing should honor the border-radius  
curve.  The idea behind border-image is that it *should* match the  
original border shape, and that any pixels drawn outside that shape  
should be purely for decorative effect.

I'm actually inclined to disallow negative offsets for the border- 
image box now that I've thought about it some more, since there is no  
way an inset box can actually respect the original border shape.  By  
disallowing negative offsets, we'd help make that clear, i.e., that  
the intent of expansion is for visual frills outside the original  
border shape, and not to just draw some arbitrarily different shape.

> There's also the question of where outlines should render.
> Yes, these are interesting questions... automatically follow the  
> contours of non-transparent pixels? Honestly, I think it would be  
> perfectly reasonable if the outline just followed the original  
> border-box, and was rendered somewhere above the border-image.

Yeah I agree.  I think the outline should just follow the original  
border shape (including the border-radius if specified).

Received on Tuesday, 31 March 2009 00:22:05 UTC

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