- From: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>
- Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 13:45:58 -0800
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Dec 15, 2010, at 1:09 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > * Why would this be a background-repeat value when it has nothing to > do with repetition? Because, under one logical way to generalize > background-repeat, the property is unfortunately misnamed. One way of > looking at background-repeat is that it specifies how to turn a finite > image into an infinite layer, which is what the background properties > actually act on. 'none' just means 'fill the plane with transparent > black outside the image's stated dimensions', while the repeat > keywords tile the image in one or both directions, filling in the rest > of the plane with transparent black if necessary. 'extend', then, > would mean 'paint the entire image, composited over an infinite > transparent black plane'. For normal images this is the same as > 'none'. For gradients, it changes things so that the entire plane is > filled with the gradient's paint. For element(), it changes things so > that decorations and descendants outside the margin box are still > painted. I'm thinking that a better property name would have been background-fill: background-fill: [tile | tile-x | tile-y | extend | none] but it's probably too late to add that now. One question is whether you'd ever want to both tile an image with infinite extent, and well as have 'extend' behavior. I could imagine wanting to tile radial gradients, yet have them all extend to get a a certain "wall of cones" type effect. Simon
Received on Wednesday, 15 December 2010 21:46:32 UTC