Re: Possible inadequacies in CSS3 Border-Image proposed specification

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 18:26:42 -0500, fantasai <fantasai@escape.com> wrote:
>
> Vincent Starre wrote:
>>
>> The current draft ( http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-css3-border-20021107/ 
>> ) would allow for up to 16 images to be specified for a border. I 
>> realize that it is impossible, and doesnt make sense to try, to make 
>> everyone happy. However, by my count, the logical number of images to 
>> allow for is not 16, but 24. That is, 3 per edge and 3 per corner.
>
> Why 3 per corner? What would you do with 3 images that you can't do with
> one?
>
> ~fantasai
>


I think this can best be described with ASCII-art.. (let's hope the both 
of us use fixed-width fonts)
    ______        _________        ________
   |      |______|         |______|        |
   |                                       |
   |   Some content that is written here   |
   |_  within the border that is made.    _|
     | Just imaging that instead of look |
     | ing like crappy blocky nothing,   |
     | it's some elaborate thing with    |
    /  flowers or something              |
   |_____________________________________|


This cannot be achieved with merely 3-per-edge, as that would repeat the 
sections in the upper left and right corners, eg:
  _______      ________       ________
         |_____        |______        |
           ^^^


if the content expands beyond the border image's width. That is to say, we 
only want the section marked with "^" to be repeated. (they would be 
seperate images in a 24-image model) CSS imaged-borders should be 
considered (in my opinion) as things to use when the content's size is 
variable, as there are already some very straight-forward methods 
available for fixed-size content.

Ernest Cline described my intended layout best, I think (i'll add a few 
things to make it harder to understand and more along the lines of my 
point):

ABBBBBDDDDDDDDEEEEEEEFFFFFFFFGGGGGH
C                                 I
C                                 I
.                                 .
.                                 .

sections D and F are repeating, while all the others are non-repeating.
I hope that makes sense.

-- 
-----------------------
Vincent Starre
thebitman@comcast.net

Received on Saturday, 17 January 2004 20:31:40 UTC