W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > January 2011

Re: Publish working draft for CSS3 Images?

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 09:58:37 -0800
Message-ID: <AANLkTin3QopXDze3LrqtHOcXdweztBfbkRsP2b4kxzkZ@mail.gmail.com>
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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:36 GMT