W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > September 2009

Re: Border-Images and 'round': CSS Backgrounds and Borders Module ?Level 3

From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 15:59:23 -0700
Message-ID: <7e1f93760909301559mc03a4f9r782a3d420a8e4e62@mail.gmail.com>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, Bert Bos <bert@w3.org>
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 11:43 AM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>wrote:

> 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?
> ~fantasai

Those look like all good changes to me (your dif Web page is a nice way
review them too!).

One thing I noticed:

   - In line 984 where you are changing "direction" to "dimension", it looks
   like you missed one in the parentheses (assuming that was unintentional).
Received on Wednesday, 30 September 2009 22:59:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:07:39 UTC