W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2014

[css3-background] Border-image clarifications

From: Matt Rakow <marakow@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 18:53:08 +0000
To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <d1dbd8fb9f334e9183f2ecf6c13fd610@BL2PR03MB260.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Hi all,

We've been reviewing the border-image properties and would like to add a few minor clarifications to help disambiguate certain portions of the spec.  I think all of this is in line with the current intent of the spec, so this is intended just to eliminate possibilities for misinterpretation and shouldn't represent any functional changes.

6.1: "Specifies an image to use instead of the border styles" -- this sounds like it implies the border image overrides border styles, rather than simply changing the rendering.  "Specifies an image to render instead of the border style" clarifies, I think.

6.1: "as an additional background layer for the element" -- I think this is making reference to the "fill" behavior, but then I think this starts to imply interaction with background-related features that may not be intentional?  One simple example of many -- should background-blend-mode apply to the border image?  To just the "fill" portion?  Or not at all (I think this is the intention).  If this interpretation is correct, then I think this phrase should be removed such that the definition doesn't imply interaction with backgrounds.

6.1 "the element's borders are invisible" -- invisible seems ambiguous (Can they still be hit-tested against?  Are they reflected in DOM APIs?) -- I think this should be phrased as "the element's borders are replaced by the border image"

6.2 "Negative values are not allowed and values bigger than the size of the image are interpreted as '100%'." -- Is this stating that negative values are thrown out as invalid, and boundary-clamping is done only on the upper bound?  Or that boundary-clamping occurs on both ends?  Also, I'm assuming that the computed value is the clamped value and not the specified value in this case.

6.2 "auto-sized background" -- This term isn't really defined, but I think this is referring to "a background whose background-size property is 'auto'" -- If so, it would probably be good to make that term a link to section 3.9 or else define it inline.

6.3 "'auto' If the image does not have the required intrinsic dimension then the corresponding border-width is used instead." -- Should be "corresponding computed border-width", similar to the definition for <number>

6.4 "multiple of the corresponding border-width" -- Should also be "corresponding computed border-width"

6.4 -- the formatting of value description is inconsistent with section 6.3.  Could this be reformatted as a <dl> in the same fashion as section 6.3?

Thanks!
-Matt
Received on Wednesday, 16 April 2014 18:53:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:21 UTC