- From: Grey Hodge <grey@thecloudygroup.com>
- Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 17:09:12 -0500
- To: www-style@w3.org
On 1/18/2008 3:24 PM David Hyatt cranked up the brainbox and said: > I think background-size is a better name. You are specifying the size > of the background image tile(s). Stretch implies growth. You can > actually specify a size that is smaller than the intrinsic size of the > image, in which case you aren't stretching. You're shrinking. Given that, and the other arguments, background-resize or background-sizing would be more accurate. Then an argument of none is implicitly logical, as is a larger or smaller size. What is the resize value? None, 0, or even 100%, not resized. Resize it to 150% or 25%, etc. > dave > (hyatt@apple.com) > > On Jan 18, 2008, at 2:17 PM, fantasai 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. >> >> ~fantasai >> > > > -- Grey Hodge email [ grey @ thecloudygroup.com ] web [ http://www.thecloudygroup.com ] motto [ Make everything as simple as possible, but no simpler. - Einstein ]
Received on Friday, 18 January 2008 22:10:14 UTC