- From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 14:47:17 -0800
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Cc: HÃ¥kon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Jan 26, 2009, at 11:53 AM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote: > Rather, I'd like to use the jpg image directly and just set a >> >> background on the element to cover the man: >> div { background: black; >> border-image: url(picture.jpg) 125 125 125 125 stretch >> stretch; >> } >> So, how about placing the background from the 'border-image' be at >> the >> bottom of the stack instead? Or, perhaps even simpler, just clip the >> middle part of the borders image (the one rectangle which is not used >> as a border)? > > If it's really an issue, we can add an 'empty' keyword to trigger > omitting the center part of the image. Or change the behavior and > have 'fill' require filling the middle. > > Do any web designers have an opinion on this? I can see the point about jpegs, but my view is that I would ALWAYS be editing the images in an image editing program like PhotoShop anyway, so cutting out the middle and using a transparency-supporting format like GIF or PING is really no big deal. . Whether doing fancy borders or fancy buttons, I am likely going to want transparency. Even with the picture frame example, which is rectangular, I would likely edit it so that each side had only one small repeating segment. So I would already be using PhotoShop, where I can cut out the middle easily. .
Received on Monday, 26 January 2009 22:48:14 UTC