- From: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
- Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2007 12:20:59 -0700
- To: "fantasai" <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Cc: <www-style@w3.org>
----- Original Message ----- From: "fantasai" <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> To: "Andrew Fedoniouk" <news@terrainformatica.com> Cc: <www-style@w3.org> Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2007 12:08 AM Subject: Re: [CSS3] foreground-image > Andrew Fedoniouk wrote: >> David Baron wrote: >>> I'd rather have something like: >>> >>> content: image(url(foo.png), 25, 25, 300, 300); >>> >>> as proposed in comments 3 and 4 of: >>> >>> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=113577 >>> >>> that would apply to all properties that deal with images >>> (background-image, list-style-image, etc.). >> >> This is out of scope of foreground-image per se but anyway... >> >> What will happen if image does not support pixel cropping >> in principle? SVG for example. And I think croping of jpegs and a-gifs >> is also not a good idea. > > SVG has a coordinate system, so pixel references in this sense > would work just fine. David's suggestion could also just as > easily use percentages as an alternative form. > Sorry, but your understanding of SVG coordinate systems appears as not exact. http://www.lancs.ac.uk/postgrad/claverin/coords.htm Back to image slicing: Constructions like image(url(foo.png), 25, 25, 300, 300); make sense only for purely bitmap images where numbers 25, 25, 300, 300 correspond to to physical bimap pixels - so to PNG and non-animated GIFs. I understand motivation of having image slices but think that it can be achieved by using #fragment-id part of the URL for its direct purpose: url(foo.png#25,25,00,300); So foo.png#25,25,00,300 identifies fragment in foo.png Did I miss something in principle? Andrew Fedoniouk. http://terrainformatica.com
Received on Saturday, 8 September 2007 19:22:12 UTC