- From: Rasmus Kaj <rasmus@kaj.a.se>
- Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 09:39:42 -0500 (EST)
- To: py8ieh=www-style@bath.ac.uk, py8ieh@bath.ac.uk
- Cc: davidp@earthlink.net, www-style@w3.org
- Cc: kaj@interbizz.se
>>>>> "IH" == Ian Hickson <py8ieh@bath.ac.uk> writes: IH> On Thu, 14 Jan 1999, David Perrell wrote: >> How about two more: 'stretch-x' and 'stretch-y'? >> Stretch-x would size-to-fit in the x direction and repeat in the y, >> stretch-y would size-to-fit in the y and repeat in the x. This would >> allow textured gradients. IH> Good idea. Agreed. IH> Anyway. The full description becomes: IH> 'background-repeat' IH> Value: repeat | repeat-x | repeat-y | no-repeat | IH> [INS:] fit | fit-x | fit-y | [:INS] inherit (snip) IH> fit-x IH> Analogous to 'fit', but only scaled to fit in the x direction. IH> In the y-direction, the image is repeated, the height of each IH> step being the intrinsic height of the image (as in 'repeat-y'). I'd like to suggest a further change in this, so that in the y-direction the image is neither fitted or repeated, unless repeat-y is given. The same change applies to fit-y (and repeat-[xy]) This means that the value definition would have to be altered to accept two values. Then repeat, fit and no-repeat would be shorthand values for repeat-x repeat-y, fit-x fit-y and no-repeat-x no-repeat-y respectively. The benefit of this is a) that the author gets greater freedom b) that the implementator have independent values for the x and y axes, which I think simplifies the implementation (yes, I am writing a CSS implementation, so I think I can have opinions of what implementators (or at least one implementator) thinks). // Rasmus Kaj -- rasmus@kaj.a.se ----------------- Rasmus Kaj - http://www.e.kth.se/~kaj/ \ Microsoft: How long do U want to wait today? \---------------------------------------------- http://www.Raditex.se/
Received on Friday, 15 January 1999 10:00:17 UTC