- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 22:50:25 +0100
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, www-style@w3.org
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 21:17:37 +0100, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote: > A comment in the spec says: > > # Is ‘background-stretch’ a better name? People also suggested to use > # ‘background-stretch: none’ instead of ‘auto’ in that case. > > I think we should go with 'background-stretch'. It gives a clearer > idea of what the property does: background-size could be interpreted > as setting the size of the background area, not the size of the image. > I'd keep 'auto' as the initial value though, especially since scalable > images (aspect ratio, no height/width) will always be stretched. I agree with David Hyatt. background-size is clearer name and we already have various background-* properties specifically for the background image, such as background-position, background-repeat and background-attachment so I don't think it will be interpreted as being for something else. -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Friday, 18 January 2008 21:47:23 UTC