This is somewhat related to yesterday's border-image discussion [0]. Brad and Tab seem to say that the the rendering for dimensionless background images is clear, but I think it needs a little bit of work. Reading [1] and a message from 2009 [2], it seems the intention is that when scaling gradients using background-size, B&B's "intrinsic size" [3] should be understood as the "CSS View Box" defined in the Images spec [4]. (The attachment, which contains a gradient with 'background-size: 60px', illustrates that Gecko and WebKit follow this interpretation.) Is my understanding correct? If this is correct, then either B&B should specify the "CSS View Box" and use it in the definition of background-size [3], or Images should specify that a gradient's "intrinsic size" should be considered the size of its CSS View Box for purposes of sizing [5]. The former seems simpler and saner. In the current revision, background-size says to use 100% for 'auto' [3] (since gradients explicitly have no intrinsic size [5] and there is no mention of any implicit ratio). 0. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Feb/0170.html 1. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Feb/0127.html 2. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009Dec/0128.html 3. http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-background/#auto 4. http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-images/#css-view-box 5. http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-images/#gradients -- Leif Arne Storset Core Technology Developer, Opera Software Oslo, Norway
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 23 January 2023 02:13:56 UTC