Brad Kemper wrote: > > On Sep 29, 2009, at 7:44 PM, fantasai wrote: > >> Brad Kemper wrote: >>> 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. >> >> It's reduce-only to avoid losing resolution, yes. Probably that >> restriction >> should be lifted for vector images at least. > > At least. At worst, the raster image will be no worse that images with > the "stretch" keyword. If authors are concerned, they can build more > resolution into their source images, or have them scaled down in > 'border-image-width'. > > Or, alternately, we could favor reductions by having any space that was > less than say 25% of a tile size result in widening, and everything else > resulting in width reduction. Ok, I've updated the spec to say this. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/csswg/css3-background/Overview.src.html.diff?r1=1.167&r2=1.168&f=h Bert, do you agree with this change? ~fantasaiReceived on Wednesday, 30 September 2009 18:44:37 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 23 January 2023 02:13:39 UTC