- From: Alan Gresley <alan1@azzurum.com>
- Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 06:00:58 -0700
- To: www-style@w3.org
fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> > 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 I will go with the others who have replied. I like background-size because more intuitive. I also like it because attempting to convey what happens to the image by other words could imply something that doesn't always happen (as David said it may shrink). An author who is just learning CSS or web design in general or people who have never sat in front of a computer visualized size as a fixed unit. More experience designers realize this is not quite so and even if they begin to grasp the concept of size they may not understand the difference between explicit or implicit size or that size is relative. More on this in my next list message. Alan http://css-class.com/
Received on Saturday, 19 January 2008 13:01:19 UTC