- From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2009 22:18:55 -0700
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Bert Bos <bert@w3.org>, "www-style@w3.org list" <www-style@w3.org>
On Mar 29, 2009, at 9:48 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >> I suspect in the vast majority of cases that authors would use them >> as I >> have, so it is somewhat unsatisfying to me to have to type them out >> in order >> to get to the third set of numbers. Perhaps the third set of >> numbers should >> be preceded by something other than a slash (a double slash >> maybe?), so that >> the second set can just default to 1 image pixel = 1px. > > Perhaps we can just allow it to be omitted, but still require that > both of the slashes appear if you're specifying offsets? So in the > final example it would look like: > > border-image: url(Aladdins_Lamp.png) 4 125 141 44 // 0px 14px 12px > 27px / stretch round; Yes, that works for me (except no third slash before the "stretch round" part). Note that currently in the WD, omitting the second set of numbers means that the image border width will be equal to the border-width property value, which is much less useful that just having a 1 to 1 correspondence between image pixels and CSS pixels. > I suppose this is basically identical to what you've said, except that > a single slash is still used when all elements are specified. I don't > know if that's worth it; it may be better to just use a double slash > or whatever. No,I like your version. I suspect it would be easier to parse too.
Received on Monday, 30 March 2009 05:19:35 UTC