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

Re: 'border-image' confusion

From: Eric A. Meyer <eric@meyerweb.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 14:26:53 -0500
Message-Id: <a06230901c966215f3d0f@[192.168.1.128]>
To: www-style@w3.org
At 10:28 AM -0800 1/26/11, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:

>On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 10:19 AM, Eric A. Meyer <eric@meyerweb.com> wrote:
>>    I suppose, but it seems like saying "100%" or "5px" once (and then being
>>  able to control how the image is repeated, with round/space/repeat) isn't
>>  all that more difficult than having a special keyword.
>>    Is there some reason why the current behavior of 'border-image-slice' is
>>  desirable?  If there is, then yes, a new keyword would be needed to make the
>>  "use a single symbol all the way around" case happen.  But I don't see why
>>  slices overlapping should cause those slices to be forced to complete
>>  transparency in the first place, so I don't see why syntax changes are
>>  needed.
>
>I don't think overlapping regions actually make sense.  You can define
>an unambiguous handling of it, but it'll make about as much sense as
>the location of the edges of an inline containing block. (In that
>situation, you can have a "left" edge that's further right than the
>"right" edge.)  This is why I think the current treatment of
>overlapping regions is fine, and why I think it's clearer to simply
>say directly that you want the whole thing, via a keyword rather than
>lengths.

    Since the slicing is described as an offset from the corresponding 
edge, an offset of 100% doesn't strike me as being that difficult to 
understand.  It might be slightly more difficult to diagram, but not 
overly so and anyway I don't see that diagramming difficulty is a 
reason to do or not do something.
    Are you saying that's the reason for the change of slicing 
behavior?  Or is there something else that drove the change?

-- 
Eric A. Meyer (eric@meyerweb.com)     http://meyerweb.com/
Received on Wednesday, 26 January 2011 19:27:25 GMT

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