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

On Mar 27, 2009, at 10:41 AM, Bert Bos wrote:

> On Thursday 26 March 2009, Brad Kemper wrote:
>> On Mar 25, 2009, at 12:06 PM, David Hyatt wrote:
>>> image
>>> contains the following sentence:
>>> "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)."
>>> [..]
>>> If the image fails to load, it's only going to be after trying for
>>> a while, and therefore an implementation honoring the language
>>> above would end up popping back to the original border-widths as
>>> specified somewhere else, but only after the image load has failed.
>>> It's best for the border-image to just always set the border
>>> widths, even if the image fails to load.  That way on a failure,
>>> the entire box doesn't change size.
> If these border widths are never ignored, then it is not necessary to
> have two sets of widths, and we can just as well use the 'border- 
> width'
> property.
> It certainly simplifies things, both for authors and for implementers,
> if 'border-image' loses the slash-part. The fallback border if the
> image doesn't load is likely to be rather thick in that case, but  
> for a
> fallback that's maybe not such a big deal.
> I guess I'm saying: I'm OK with having just one set of border widths,
> whether or not the image loads, but then I want the syntax to reflect
> that, and allow just one set, too.

Yeah, I guess I'm saying "let's just drop the ability to set border  
widths from border-image."


Received on Friday, 27 March 2009 16:59:34 UTC