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

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

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 17:58:38 -0500
Message-ID: <dd0fbad0909281558v554f7f82s8b249d2b91b6f6a0@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 5:51 PM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sure it would. The alignment wouldn't change as you added more tiles. The
> would just push previous tiles to the left. Like when you add words to a
> centered paragraph. At least that's how I read it.

Ah, I don't see it that way.  I presumed that it would tile in a
similar manner to backgrounds.

> You're saying that only the first tile is on the left edge for "round", so
> that successive tile can be added to the right of it?

Yes.

> By that logic, if "repeat" is used instead of "round", then the first tile
> is centered, and successive tiles are added to both sides? Then with an even
> number of tiles there is always at least an extra tile's worth of space left
> over, split between the two sides? That seems pretty screwey to me. It seems
> to guarantee that for about half the box widths, the edge will not be filled
> as fully as it could be with repeating tiles. Why would you want that? Or
> are you saying they would be clipped at the two edges where they ran into
> the corner pieces? That would be even worse! The "tile and draw" part
> doesn't actually say if "repeat" is only tiling whole tiles, but I had
> assumed it would.

That is an interesting problem, and *does* seem to be a real issue.
(By my current reading, 'repeat' will only repeat whole tiles, and so
in this case will be 1 short of full in some cases.)

On the other hand, this behavior does allow it to still sync up with
backgrounds that are repeated.  Filling it to the maximum (sometimes
using an even number of tiles) won't always do that.

Bert, fantasai, any comment on the intentions here?

~TJ
Received on Monday, 28 September 2009 22:59:37 GMT

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