Re: [css3-background] background-size vs background-stretch

Molly E. Holzschlag wrote:
> If we agree that background-size essentially means "take this background image and make it fill
> this much of the background area"
> 
> Sounds like background-image-size to me.
> 
> background-fill or background-image-fill would still make sense from a design perspective in my
> opinion. Definitely more so than background-size which makes me simply think I can literally size
> the background any way I want, which clearly isn't what we're expressing here.

How about 'background-fit', would that make sense?

(We could also add the 'fill', 'contain', and 'cover' keywords from the 'image-fit' proposal.)
   http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-page/img_scale.png

~fantasai

Received on Saturday, 26 January 2008 19:23:08 UTC