- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2010 15:55:31 -0700
- To: Rob Crowther <robertc@boogdesign.com>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 2:58 PM, Rob Crowther <robertc@boogdesign.com> wrote: > Hi All > > The 12th June WD states, for the border-image-slice property: > > "The ‘fill’ keyword, if present, causes the middle part of the border-image > to be preserved. (By default it is discarded, i.e., treated as empty.)" > > All current implementations, as far as I can see (I've checked Firefox, > Chromium and Opera) implement only the combined border-image property from > the 20080910 WD which has no definition for the fill keyword. This would > seem to be consistent with the dates when Mozilla and WebKit implemented it. > > So my interpretation of the situation is that the browsers have implemented > the 20080910 WD version and will be updating to match the final version of > the spec when it gets agreed. However, Opera have implemented border-image > without a prefix following the 20080910 behaviour in 10.50 and later. > > There doesn't appear to have been too much discussion of border-image on > this list recently, though there may have been before I joined it, but is it > more likely we'll see the 20080910 version of border-image in the final > Backgrounds & Borders Level 3, since that's what everyone seems to have > implemented, or the current version? No, we specifically chose to significantly change border-image from what it was before because the new draft is significantly better in multiple ways. > If we will end up with the current version, am I interpreting the combined > syntax correctly if provide fallback this way (assuming I have an > appropriate image for '...': > > -moz-border-image: url(...) 80 stretch; > -webkit-border-image: url(...) 80 stretch; > border-image: url(...) 80 fill stretch; That is, generally, the correct way to handle prefixed and unprefixed properties. Note, of course, that the syntax for the current border-image is significantly different from the 2008 draft, so you can't just copy it over. ~TJ
Received on Saturday, 31 July 2010 22:56:23 UTC