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

Re: Border-Images and 'round': CSS Backgrounds and Borders Module Level 3

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2009 13:59:48 -0500
Message-ID: <dd0fbad0910011159o2cdddb84h515e34d55f05d57f@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Cc: Mikko Rantalainen <mikko.rantalainen@peda.net>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 1:03 PM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Oct 1, 2009, at 12:10 AM, Mikko Rantalainen wrote:
>
>> As you say, it makes sense to allow this for "high" resolution source
>> images. I think that the spec cannot specify reasonable exact limit for
>> changing from real rounding to ceil() method without knowing the scaling
>> algorithm.
>
> I would much rather see interoperability in terms of how many tiles are
> shown.
>
> I don't personally think the UA should be deciding based on resolution if it
> should widen the image or not. It does not do that for the the 'scale'
> keyword, where I can scale a raster image 1000 times bigger if I want. It
> also does not do that for border-image-width, where I can turn a 5px tall
> image slice into a border side that is 500px thick.
>
> The upscaling for round is really fine, even on auto sized raster images, in
> my view. Here is a test I did:
>
> http://www.bradclicks.com/cssplay/border-image/round-test1.html
>
> I think if the author didn't want upscaling with 'round' they would create
> the image tiles at a size that prevented it from happening.

I really don't have a problem with the UA deciding whether to upscale
or downscale here, since it's a fairly small difference anyway.  But I
agree that the upscaling problems are pretty small, so it wouldn't be
a bad thing to use a strict algorithm that treated all images equally.

~TJ
Received on Thursday, 1 October 2009 19:00:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:21 GMT