RE: [cssN backgrounds] background-repeat: extend;

So it sounds like it should live here, if you can convince Elika and Hakon.

"This never happens with raster images"
Why?  It seems totally reasonable for it to happen for raster images.

More specifically why should these two examples behave in a fundamentally different way...

background-image: url('sprites.svg#xywh=10,30,60,20'); 
background-image: url('sprites.png#xywh=10,30,60,20');

... when married with "background-repeat: extend;"?

Also, there are cases where it would be useful to have the edge pixels be spread to fill the remaining space rather than to leave that region unpainted.  Like the attached.


-----Original Message-----
From: Tab Atkins Jr. [] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 12:52 PM
To: Brian Manthos
Subject: Re: [cssN backgrounds] background-repeat: extend;

On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Brian Manthos <> wrote:
> Is there a draft that discusses this?
> I couldn’t find one.

It's been discussed in the past in relation to gradients, but hasn't
yet made it into a draft.  I considered adding it to Image Values, but
we instead decided it should go into B&B4.

The effect of it is that it displays the entire image when an image
overflows the concrete object size.  This never happens with raster
images, but it always happens with gradients, and sometimes happens
with SVG images.

This value is placed under background-repeat because, name
notwithstanding, the effect of the property is to specify how to paint
a finite-sized image onto an infinite canvas.  'extend' fits right in
alongside the tiling values.


Received on Tuesday, 20 September 2011 20:26:46 UTC