- From: Paul Duncan <paul.duncan@marketpipe.com>
- Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 12:38:04 +0100
- To: "'Kelly Miller'" <lightsolphoenix@gmail.com>, <www-style@w3.org>
> From: On Behalf Of Kelly Miller > To: www-style@w3.org > > Background-size & stretching > > I believe that background-stretch would be a better name for this > property, if for no other reason than it's more telling of the property's > true effect on background images. I recently fed back a similar request. Naming the property Background-size confuses the issue and leads to unintuitive behaviour. If I want a background image to stretch to fill the area I would not expect to write "background-size: 100%". Logically to me 100% would imply that the background image size should be its real size and original aspect ratio. Whereas "background-size: auto" implies to my the image will automatically stretch to fill the available area? So in my opinion the property should as you asked be renamed background-stretch with values. Rowan Lewis said: On that note, I like Paul Duncan's 'background-stretch' implementation but it would be better to allow something more like this: None (the default) no stretch Auto Stretches x and y to fill the area Length XY | Length XY A specific size. Percentage XY | Percentage X Percentage Y - The percentage is relative to the width or height of the area given by 'background-origin'. Only the value none would ever have to apply to both X and Y, you should also be able to use 'auto' for either X or Y. Regards Paul Duncan.
Received on Thursday, 4 August 2005 11:38:45 UTC