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: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 16:14:13 -0700
Message-ID: <7e1f93760909301614h591a0eedka9975d73031d8b13@mail.gmail.com>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 12:03 PM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>wrote:

> Brad Kemper wrote:
>
>>
>> Because partial tiles look pretty bad, right? If each side is tiled first,
>> with the number of whole tiles (or single stretched tile) that will fit in
>> the space, and then positioned in the space, then there is not this problem
>> for "repeat" either. Here is how I would do it:
>>
>
> I'm fine with adding a 'space' option for border-image to match
> 'background-repeat'.
>
> I'm /not/ comfortable changing 'repeat' so that it behaves differently
> in border-image than it does for backgrounds. Yes, it's use is somewhat
> limited to images that have a sharp linear division between the corner
> and the sides, but I think the usefulness of changing that to add a gap
> is questionable and not worth the inconsistency with background-repeat.
>

OK, I'll stop arguing that point then.

For 'space' though, It would be better if the first and last images did not
touch the edges of the area. In other words,  if N = number of tiles, the
the number of spaces should be N+1 (so that there is the same amount of
space between the corners and the tiles as between the tiles themselves),
instead of N-1.Also, the minimum number of tiles for 'space' should be zero,
not one.
Received on Wednesday, 30 September 2009 23:14:48 GMT

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