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

Re: [css3-background][css3-images] background-repeat: none and extend

From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 16:07:41 -0800
Message-Id: <C285666D-ED2D-4A58-87D6-D3DE49C15BC9@gmail.com>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
On Dec 15, 2010, at 1:09 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:

> Right now, if you use a CSS gradient in Firefox and set
> background-repeat:none plus set background-size or background-position
> to a non-default value, you can see that FF "clips" the gradient to
> its sizing rectangle.  However, gradients theoretically throw paint
> over an infinite plane.  It may sometimes be desirable to have the
> gradient "look" infinite, so that it is only clipped by the actual
> size of the background painting area.  This way, doing something like
> "background-size:50%" would just scale the gradient down by 50%, but
> the image would still fill the entire background.
> 
> I've been assuming that the Firefox behavior is a sensible default,
> and that we'd activate the latter behavior through another
> background-repeat value like 'extend' or something.*  Can I depend on
> this?

I am in favor of 'background-repeat:extend' (which for raster file images would be the same as 'background-repeat:no-repeat'). Can it just be added to the images spec under a heading like "Gradient Extensions to 'Background' Properties", so that it doesn't have to wait for a full B&B4 module, and can be moved along the same track as gradients et al?

Is there any need for 'extend-x' and 'extend-y'? I wouldn't think so, but maybe you've ideas about that. 
Received on Thursday, 16 December 2010 00:08:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:35 GMT