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