- From: Molly E. Holzschlag <molly@molly.com>
- Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 08:49:02 +1000
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
I still think background-fill is more intuitive to the designer mind, but given the example you showed re: fit, I think that would work as an option, too. It's surely better than the use of size, which simply is not an accurate description of what is being done. Molly :) On Jan 27, 2008, at 5:22 AM, fantasai wrote: > 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 22:49:19 UTC