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

RE: [css3-images] Features Overview

From: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 17:50:15 +0000
To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, "public-media-fragment@w3.org" <public-media-fragment@w3.org>
Message-ID: <FA122FEC823D524CB516E4E0374D9DCF1FAA2C78@TK5EX14MBXC138.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Brian:
>> How does this behave for formats that contain multiple source resolutions within the same file?
>>
>> 	background-image: 
>> url("http://www.microsoft.com/favicon.ico#xywh=10,30,60,20");

Brad Kemper:
> Suppose we are trying to squeeze into a square that is,
> say. 100px x 100px, and there are three choices:
> 1,000px x 4px, 6px x 1,000px, or 50px x 60px. I think
> I know which I'd choose, but maybe it isn't always clear cut.

Let's assume you have a 100px x 100px div with 0 padding and 0 border-width and the 3 sizes within the same .ico file in your example.

Would your choice the be the same or different for these cases:

(a) background-size unspecified

(b) background-size: 100px 100px; 

(c) background-size: 2px 10px;

(d) background-size: 2px 100%;

(e) background-size: 2px auto;


As it stands today, background-size takes the image intrinsic dimensions as (optional) inputs and round/space takes post-background-size sizing as input.

How far down the rabbit hole do we go for fragments to guess what's most desirable at render time?

Received on Wednesday, 11 May 2011 17:54:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:40 GMT