- From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 22:27:30 -0700
- To: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
I don't know if this has been brought up before (I couldn't find anything in the archives, but that doesn't mean it hasn't). But I was looking at the editor's draft[1] and noticed that the 'round' keyword only causes tiles to be rounded down (compressed in the direction of their repetition), not up (expanded in the direction of their repetition). I'm not sure why I didn't notice that before, or why it didn't register with me, but it seems to me that they should be compressed to less than 100% of their normal size if there is half or more of a tile's worth of space left over, and expanded to beyond 100% of their normal size if there is less than half a tile of left over space available. That way, if you have a tile that is, say, 49% of the available space, the two tiles will just grow a little to fit perfectly, instead of massively resizing the tiles in order to cram a third one in there. Does anyone remember why it is reduce-only? If it is a matter of the tile losing resolution as it grows, I think that is more acceptable for the smaller adjustments that may be needed that having much larger adjustments required. And it is no worse than 'stretch'. Or does this have something to do with anti-aliasing a high-contrast edge (allowing a seamless abutting of tiles) into a lower contrast edge that would show where the tile edges are (I'm not sure if that sort of thing sometimes happens when shrinking too, or if there is another way around that)? _____ Another thing that surprised me when I was reading about the border- image drawing process[2] more closely, was that in the "position" step, if there is space left over after the tiling (for "repeat" keyword) it goes on the ends of the row of tiles (the row of abutting tiles is centered in the available space). I always just assumed the tiles would be distributed in the space evenly. Anyone who did not want gaps between the tiles would have used "round" instead of "repeat". I definitely think that distributing the tiles would yield a nicer effect than centering them, as I imagine "repeat" being used mainly for dash-pattern types of borders. If I am wrong, and there are some significant use cases that I am not thinking of, then maybe a fourth keyword of "distribute" could be added? Also, just a small, not-too-important comment about the wording of that step: it seams to imply that being left-aligned is important for "round", but not "stretch". Am I missing something? Isn't it the same for both whatever the alignment (it fills the entire space, right?). Really it is "repeat" that is the exception, not "round", as only "repeat" has extra space to deal with at that step. I'm thinking this choice of wording is a relic of a much earlier draft. [1] http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-background/#the-border-image-repeat [2] http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-background/#border-image-process
Received on Sunday, 27 September 2009 05:28:17 UTC