- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2014 12:04:54 -0800
- To: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
- Cc: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>, Jet Villegas W3C <w3c@junglecode.net>, Dean Jackson <dino@apple.com>, "liam@w3.org" <liam@w3.org>, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, Simon Fraser <simon.fraser@apple.com>
On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 7:51 AM, Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Starting to look at the image function again. IMO it makes sense to base the syntax and behavior of a sliced-image() on the ‘border-image’ shorthand[1]. (Type names shortened in this mail.)
>
> border-image: [ <image> | none ] || <image-slice> [ / <image-width>? [ / <image-outset>]? ]? || <image-repeat>
>
> with:
>
> <image-slice> = [ <length> | <percentage> | <number> | auto ]{1,4}
> <image-width> = [ <length> | <percentage> | <number> | auto ]{1,4}
> <image-outset> = [ <length> | <number> ]{1,4}
> <image-repeat> = [ stretch | repeat | round | space ]{1,2}
>
> The area for 'border-image' is determined by the border-box. The area can be extended with 'border-outset’. CSS Image already specifies an image area for a bunch of properties. Other properties like ‘background’ and ‘mask’ specify their own image area. I think the function shouldn’t try to mess up with these definitions and therefore I suggest to leaf <image-outset> and <image-width> out of the equation for now.
>
> sliced-image(
> [ <image> | <string> ] || <image-slice> || <image-repeat>
> )
Yes, this is what I was thinking too.
> If needed we can add "[ / <image-width>? [ / <image-outset>]? ]?" later. The function would follow the definitions of 'border-image-*’ properties otherwise.
Right. Both of these are *potentially* useful, but are definitely
outside the core functionality. They were needed to hit the use-cases
for border-image, but I don't think they're needed here, at least not
at level 1.
~TJ
Received on Friday, 3 January 2014 20:05:42 UTC