Re: border-image and border-widths

David Hyatt wrote:
> 
> On Feb 12, 2009, at 7:22 PM, fantasai wrote:
> 
>> BTW, Hyatt, on a tangential note.. does Webkit implement this part
>>  # If the slash is present in the property value, the one to four
>>  # values after it are used for the width of the border instead of
>>  # the ‘border-width’ properties (but only if the specified image
>>  # can be displayed).
>> and is its effect on layout desired or should it merely be a graphical
>> thing?
> 
> I assume you're asking if WebKit handles  "(but only if the specified 
> image can be displayed)."  No, we don't.  I don't like that part of the 
> spec.
> 
> We just always set the border widths, and don't check to see if the 
> image has loaded first.  I don't see any situation where the author 
> would actually want the border box to change size if the image fails to 
> load.
> 
> Right now our behavior while a border image is loading is to just not 
> draw any border.  That way the image just pops in like any other image 
> on a page.  If the image fails to load, then we'll go ahead and display 
> the fallback border.  I don't like the idea of selectively honoring the 
> widths specified by border-image, since prior to the image loading, 
> you'd want to honor the image's widths anyway. Otherwise you could do a 
> size jump on a successful load, and that would be lame.
> 
> The widths specified by border-image should just always be honored so as 
> not to create a trap for authors to fall into.

Ok, so if that's what you're doing then wouldn't it make more sense to
have the border-image widths /not/ influence layout and make the author
add space into the padding as necessary? Because this way a browser that
supports border-image but doesn't load the image and a browser that
doesn't support border-image will give different fallback behaviors.

~fantasai

Received on Friday, 13 February 2009 07:23:24 UTC