- From: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>
- Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 16:35:47 -0800
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Received on Thursday, 16 December 2010 00:36:54 UTC
On Dec 15, 2010, at 4:06 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 1:45 PM, Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com> wrote: >> 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. > > Agreed on both points. > > If I define an @image rule (which I'm thinking I will, though I'll > probably wait for Image Values 4), I'll likely name the property > 'fill' or similar. > > >> 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. > > Hm, I'm not sure I understand. Do you mean, do the whole > repeat-at-offsets thing that tiling does, but do an extend and then > composite all the images together? Presactly. Could be used for some neat effects. The drawing would get costly, though. Simon
Received on Thursday, 16 December 2010 00:36:54 UTC