On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com> wrote: > So it sounds like it should live here, if you can convince Elika and Hakon. > http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css4-background/ Yup. > "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;"? Hmm, I hadn't thought of MF in relation to this. That might work, sure. On the other hand, MF are supposed to actually represent the fragment itself. I could go either way on whether it's semantically valid, but if it is, then it would totally work. > 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. I don't know if I'd call that "useful". ^_^ But also, that would be a very particular interpretation for what lies "beyond the concrete object size" of raster images. ~TJReceived on Tuesday, 20 September 2011 20:34:48 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 23 January 2023 02:14:04 UTC