- From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 10:21:09 -0700
- To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Sep 28, 2009, at 4:52 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 6:42 PM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> > wrote: >>> (By my current reading, 'repeat' will only repeat whole tiles, and >>> so >>> in this case will be 1 short of full in some cases.) >> >> One plus some percentage of one, in half if all possible box sizes, >> no? Half >> of all box sizes would fit an odd number of whole tiled, and half >> an even >> number. > > Yes, the extra "less than a box" worth of space should be assumed. > Sometimes it will be between 1 and 2 boxes worth of space, if the > image is first centered and then tiled as much as it can be. Another problem with this idea is that it seems to insist on at least one tile minimum (the original image slice part, anchored in the center). But if the box is only big enough for the corners, then there should be an allowance for a zero tile minimum between corners.
Received on Tuesday, 29 September 2009 17:21:54 UTC