Re: Stretchy backgrounds? (background-width,height properties)

On Sat, 7 Jul 2001, Dylan Schiemann wrote:
> It is my experience that most new ideas or major objections to drafts
> and recommendations are pretty much ignored except when it comes to
> correcting errors or clarifying the spec. [...]
> Some examples:
> - background-size, height/width

See my recent post.

> - opposition to the inclusion of X11 named colors in the css3 color
> spec.

So you're saying that if you object, we should take it out, but if we
object, we should leave it in because you want it? :-) (There are many
reasons to have these colours, including promoting interoperability).

> - the ability to use text as a background and to specify how it would
> be positioned and repeat.

There were valid objections made to this proposal (namely, it was
underspecified and nobody could see a way to improve it).

> - selectors which specify elements that match the parent element of a
> matched child

This is a hard issue for the WG, there are strong arguments both ways.
Believe me, we didn't ignore you. Indeed, two of the strongest proponents
of this feature are on the working group.

> - better definitions for opacity

This is being worked on, but is not a top priority.

Ian Hickson                                            )\     _. - ._.)   fL
Invited Expert, CSS Working Group                     /. `- '  (  `--'
The views expressed in this message are strictly      `- , ) -  > ) \
personal and not those of Netscape or Mozilla. ________ (.' \) (.' -' ______

Received on Sunday, 8 July 2001 21:04:23 UTC