- From: David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com>
- Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 16:32:35 -0500
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "www-style@w3.org list" <www-style@w3.org>
On Jul 23, 2009, at 3:08 PM, fantasai wrote: > Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >> >>> (2) The ability to specify bounding-box coverage for backgrounds. >>> - My proposal here is to scrap this feature. >>> - I do not see a use case for placing a background into the >>> bounding >>> box. That just seems like it would give unusual results for both >>> inlines >>> and columns. Columns broken across pages would be even stranger. >> I definitely see the use for this ability, but it's nothing that >> can't >> be done by putting a background on a container element instead. I'd > > Putting a background on the container element would get you a very > different > effect. > > The bounding-box effect is similar to the tables example here: > http://fantasai.inkedblade.net/style/discuss/table-backgrounds/edge.gif > Imagine we just have the first row, and each box is a column rather > than > a table cell. > Here's the concept rendering for that image: > http://fantasai.inkedblade.net/style/discuss/table-backgrounds/edge-d.gif > Yeah, that's not a particularly compelling use case to me. The background broken up by spacing between the columns just looks weird to me... the effect would be prettier if the background had just been on the container and didn't just vanish between the columns. > What bounding-box does is draw a rectangle that includes all pieces of > the element--without moving those pieces around--and then clips out > the > parts of the background that are needed to inside the element's boxes. > > You can see some interesting effects with gradients. See > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009Apr/0131.html > Yeah, I know what it does. I'm just arguing that it's not particularly useful (and would look especially funny with inlines). dave (hyatt@apple.com)
Received on Thursday, 23 July 2009 21:33:17 UTC