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

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

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2010 15:55:31 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTinZ8Wk786oy35BM+uefHJb9aa16dXzg87PygS8j@mail.gmail.com>
To: Rob Crowther <robertc@boogdesign.com>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
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.
>
> There doesn't appear to have been too much discussion of border-image on
> this list recently, though there may have been before I joined it, but is it
> more likely we'll see the 20080910 version of border-image in the final
> Backgrounds & Borders Level 3, since that's what everyone seems to have
> implemented, or the current version?

No, we specifically chose to significantly change border-image from
what it was before because the new draft is significantly better in
multiple ways.


> 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.

~TJ
Received on Saturday, 31 July 2010 22:56:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:29 GMT