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

Re: [cssN backgrounds] background-repeat: extend;

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 13:33:52 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDCxTYfz+RObfJvcOKMPUrS551i8njT5zFTSx=j6Ds1SGQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>
Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com> wrote:
> So it sounds like it should live here, if you can convince Elika and Hakon.
> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css4-background/

Yup.


> "This never happens with raster images"
> Why?  It seems totally reasonable for it to happen for raster images.
>
> More specifically why should these two examples behave in a fundamentally different way...
>
> background-image: url('sprites.svg#xywh=10,30,60,20');
> background-image: url('sprites.png#xywh=10,30,60,20');
>
> ... when married with "background-repeat: extend;"?

Hmm, I hadn't thought of MF in relation to this.  That might work,
sure.  On the other hand, MF are supposed to actually represent the
fragment itself.  I could go either way on whether it's semantically
valid, but if it is, then it would totally work.


> Also, there are cases where it would be useful to have the edge pixels be spread to fill the remaining space rather than to leave that region unpainted.  Like the attached.

I don't know if I'd call that "useful".  ^_^  But also, that would be
a very particular interpretation for what lies "beyond the concrete
object size" of raster images.

~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 20 September 2011 20:34:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:44 GMT