Re: 'border-image' confusion

On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 10:19 AM, Eric A. Meyer <eric@meyerweb.com> wrote:
>   I suppose, but it seems like saying "100%" or "5px" once (and then being
> able to control how the image is repeated, with round/space/repeat) isn't
> all that more difficult than having a special keyword.
>   Is there some reason why the current behavior of 'border-image-slice' is
> desirable?  If there is, then yes, a new keyword would be needed to make the
> "use a single symbol all the way around" case happen.  But I don't see why
> slices overlapping should cause those slices to be forced to complete
> transparency in the first place, so I don't see why syntax changes are
> needed.

I don't think overlapping regions actually make sense.  You can define
an unambiguous handling of it, but it'll make about as much sense as
the location of the edges of an inline containing block. (In that
situation, you can have a "left" edge that's further right than the
"right" edge.)  This is why I think the current treatment of
overlapping regions is fine, and why I think it's clearer to simply
say directly that you want the whole thing, via a keyword rather than
lengths.

~TJ

Received on Wednesday, 26 January 2011 18:29:42 UTC