On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 11:43 AM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>wrote: > Brad Kemper wrote: > >> >> On Sep 29, 2009, at 7:44 PM, fantasai wrote: >> >> Brad Kemper wrote: >>> >>>> Does anyone remember why it is reduce-only? If it is a matter of the >>>> tile losing resolution as it grows, I think that is more acceptable for the >>>> smaller adjustments that may be needed that having much larger adjustments >>>> required. >>>> >>> >>> It's reduce-only to avoid losing resolution, yes. Probably that >>> restriction >>> should be lifted for vector images at least. >>> >> >> At least. At worst, the raster image will be no worse that images with the >> "stretch" keyword. If authors are concerned, they can build more resolution >> into their source images, or have them scaled down in 'border-image-width'. >> >> Or, alternately, we could favor reductions by having any space that was >> less than say 25% of a tile size result in widening, and everything else >> resulting in width reduction. >> > > Ok, I've updated the spec to say this. > > http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/csswg/css3-background/Overview.src.html.diff?r1=1.167&r2=1.168&f=h > > Bert, do you agree with this change? > > ~fantasai > Those look like all good changes to me (your dif Web page is a nice way review them too!). One thing I noticed: - In line 984 where you are changing "direction" to "dimension", it looks like you missed one in the parentheses (assuming that was unintentional).Received on Wednesday, 30 September 2009 22:59:58 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 22 May 2012 03:47:04 GMT