Re: [Backgrounds/Borders] What to do when a border-image fails to load

Brad Kemper wrote:
> 
> On Apr 13, 2009, at 6:32 PM, fantasai wrote:
> 
>>> ... what would be more useful would be the ability to scale the image 
>>> edge parts by the same percentages, so that specifying 50% would 
>>> result in image parts that were predictably half of their original 
>>> size on the screen (and full resolution when printed).
>>
>> You're still stuck on this idea that solving the image resolution
>> problem requires the ability to scale down the image. There are
>> more appropriate and more general ways to solve this problem, like
>> using vector images for drawings, or actually associating a
>> resolution with bitmap images. I'm not disputing that this is a
>> problem worth solving. I'm disputing that we should solve it here
>> in border-image by giving explicit scaling factors, and thereby
>> not solve it everywhere else where it is equally relevant.
> 
> But why allow scaling based on the border-width, but not allow scaling 
> based on the original intrinsic width? If changing the the size from the 
> intrinsic is useful, then it is useful however its done. But it seems 
> more natural to base the scaling on the original intrinsic size, and 
> have a good idea that way of whether or not it is going to end up in 
> even multiples (by choosing 25% or 200%, for example). This is an 
> important consideration if some of the lines in the image are straight 
> and the author wants to keep the edges of those lines in high contrast 
> (i.e. no grey line along side the black line from anti-aliasing a half 
> pixel).

Because scaling based on the border-width lets you
design borders that fit onto CSS border rules,
whereas scaling by intrinsic width, afaict from
your comments, is just a hack for increasing the
resolution of bitmap images. If what you're
proposing is not needed for vector images, then
we shouldn't be considering it for border-image.

~fantasai

Received on Tuesday, 14 April 2009 16:38:45 UTC