W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2010

Re: [css3-background] border-image-slice and the fill keyword

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2010 18:48:46 -0700
Message-ID: <4C57757E.3010004@inkedblade.net>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: Rob Crowther <robertc@boogdesign.com>, www-style@w3.org
On 07/31/2010 03:55 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 2:58 PM, Rob Crowther<robertc@boogdesign.com>  wrote:
>> Hi All
>>
>> The 12th June WD states, for the border-image-slice property:
>>
>> "The ‘fill’ keyword, if present, causes the middle part of the border-image
>> to be preserved. (By default it is discarded, i.e., treated as empty.)"
>>
>> All current implementations, as far as I can see (I've checked Firefox,
>> Chromium and Opera) implement only the combined border-image property from
>> the 20080910 WD which has no definition for the fill keyword.  This would
>> seem to be consistent with the dates when Mozilla and WebKit implemented it.
>>
>> So my interpretation of the situation is that the browsers have implemented
>> the 20080910 WD version and will be updating to match the final version of
>> the spec when it gets agreed.  However, Opera have implemented border-image
>> without a prefix following the 20080910 behaviour in 10.50 and later.

This is unfortunate. I hope Opera has a bug filed on fixing their behavior
to match the spec. Prefixes shouldn't be dropped if the implementation has
not been updated to match the spec when CR is published.

>> If we will end up with the current version, am I interpreting the combined
>> syntax correctly if provide fallback this way (assuming I have an
>> appropriate image for '...':
>>
>> -moz-border-image: url(...) 80 stretch;
>> -webkit-border-image: url(...) 80 stretch;
>> border-image: url(...) 80 fill stretch;
>
> That is, generally, the correct way to handle prefixed and unprefixed
> properties.  Note, of course, that the syntax for the current
> border-image is significantly different from the 2008 draft, so you
> can't just copy it over.

I believe the shorthand syntax is mostly a superset of the 2008 draft:
it is mainly the behavior of explicitly-specified border-image widths
and the default exclusion of the middle image that are different.

~fantasai
Received on Tuesday, 3 August 2010 01:49:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:30 GMT