- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 09:58:37 -0800
- To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Cc: Simon Fraser <simon.fraser@apple.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 9:21 AM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 19, 2011, at 8:36 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 8:26 AM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Jan 12, 2011, at 10:13 AM, Simon Fraser wrote: >>>> Browsers are starting to implement things from <http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-images/>: WebKit and Mozilla now have gradients >>> >>> How are gradients expected to work with border-image? I would expect it to work as if the source graphic was the same size as the element plus the offsets, which would all the values of 'border-image-repeat' act the same. >> >> Right now I have it defined (in section 6) that the gradient is the >> size of the border box. If you'd rather it be the border box + the >> offsets, I can make that change. > > Yeah, for border-image, I think that would make the most sense. Cool, change made. I believe "border image area" is the correct term, and I've cross-linked to that term in B&B. > The webkit renderings are just wrong then, right? A bug? The 'stretch' ones look wrong (that may be related to my current definition of how to size them in 'border-image' being bad). The 'repeat' ones are *definitely* wrong. ~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 19 January 2011 17:59:34 UTC