- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 11:22:55 -0800
- To: molly@molly.com
- CC: www-style@w3.org
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