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

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

From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 20:19:20 -0700
Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-Id: <01DE97F3-25A2-4361-A018-48568EDE0391@gmail.com>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>

On Sep 29, 2009, at 7:39 PM, fantasai wrote:

> Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> 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?
>
> The intention is for the image to tile exactly like the backgrounds,
> i.e. partial tiles are allowed. The entire space should be filled
> with the image.

I think we should change that. For any border other that those with  
straight edges, it pretty much guarantees that the sides will not meet  
up well with the corners, and that you will get an effect similar to  
hastily applied border-tape. Other than maybe simple dashes, it is  
hard for me to image that ever being what someone would want. And even  
with dashes, spacing them out would yield nicer results.

I'm not against having "repeat" as one of four values for this  
property, but chopping into the tiles where they meet the corners does  
not seem like it would ever be the right thing to do.

> If we need another keyword for spacing out the images, then 'space'
> should be used, as for the 'background-repeat' property.


I'm OK with that. Sounds good.
Received on Wednesday, 30 September 2009 03:19:53 GMT

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