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

RE: [css3-background] background-size and zero length

From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 23:26:06 +0000
To: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <045A765940533D4CA4933A4A7E32597E2148AF31@TK5EX14MBXC120.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
> From: www-style-request@w3.org [mailto:www-style-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Brian Manthos
> 
> Having a limitation is fine.
> 
> there are a growing number of property that have special behavior "at"
> zero.  Background-size and border-radius with box-shadow are two that
> have been discussed recently.

Are there more than these two ? box-shadow's spread radius does have an
explicit requirement at zero that makes the whole question of what range
of numbers maps to zero maybe more interesting from an interop standpoint
than it may have been in past cases ?

But what's special about background-size *at* zero as in your example ? The 
result of a 0px width and/or height is not special to this property or 
inconsistent with that of zero widths/heights/lengths elsewhere. 

Given that we do have two implementations doing the unexpected in this case,
maybe the question is forthem: is missing or current spec language the reason 
why 0 background-size widths and/or heights still render a bg-image in their 
implementation ? Is there something about background-repeat as specified that
implied a 0 background-size ought to be ignored, and if so how ? Like Brad, I 
read the current prose as implicitly saying: repeat if there is a dimension to be 
repeated. (At which point we get back to the 'how far does zero extend' question but 
that is not an issue when 0 *is* the specified value). 

Ultimately, I guess I don't understand how background-size: 0px 20px; is logically any 
different or weirder than a 0x0 background image. We don't need - nor want - to tile that 
one either. Right ?



Received on Tuesday, 11 May 2010 23:26:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:27 GMT