- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2001 20:30:57 -0700 (Pacific Daylight Time)
- To: Stuart Ballard <sballard@netreach.com>
- cc: <www-style@w3.org>
On Sun, 8 Jul 2001, Stuart Ballard wrote: > > Out of interest, why background-size as opposed to background-width and > background-height? For consistency with 'background-position'. > Also, as far as I can see with the background-size proposal, there's no > way to say "set the width to 100% but use the intrinsic height", which > might be useful for things like a wiggly gradient effect (in conjunction > with background-repeat: repeat-y). Presumably: background-size: 100% auto; Cheers, -- 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 23:31:28 UTC