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

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

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2009 22:44:09 -0700
Message-ID: <4AC6E4A9.7010606@inkedblade.net>
To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
CC: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Mikko Rantalainen <mikko.rantalainen@peda.net>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, Bert Bos <bert@w3.org>
Brad Kemper wrote:
> On Oct 1, 2009, at 11:59 AM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> Yeah, my view is that the distortion problems when doing large 
> downscaling are worse that the resolution problems when doing small to 
> medium upscaling. So even if the algorithm didn't favor downscaling, the 
> upscaling would not be bad enough to worry about.

Been thinking about this, and I think you're right. For border-image and
double-constrained background images, this would cause significantly more
distortion because the other dimension is fixed at this point.

If I was better with graphics I'd draw a picture to illustrate this. :)
But imagining a row of stars 5, the last one of which only 1/3 fits.
If the height wasn't constrained, we could just shrink the stars so
you'd get 5 small stars, which is still ok. But that's not the case.
We'd have to shrink the stars a lot width-wise, but height-wise they
can't change. So they'd turn into 5 rather anorexic stars, rather than
only 4 slightly overweight ones.

So I'm leaning towards just straight-up rounding at this point.
Bert, comments?

~fantasai
Received on Saturday, 3 October 2009 05:44:50 GMT

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