W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > September 2011

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

From: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 22:33:45 +0000
To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <9710FCC2E88860489239BE0308AC5D17169D2F@TK5EX14MBXC266.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
No, I meant cover.  Contain is a much simpler case that can be simulated with a solid background-color outside the image rect.

-----Original Message-----
From: Tab Atkins Jr. [mailto:jackalmage@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 2:55 PM
To: Brian Manthos
Cc: www-style@w3.org
Subject: Re: [cssN backgrounds] background-repeat: extend;

On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 2:04 PM, Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com> wrote:
> Ok, let me give you a simpler example.
> Why should these render differently?
> div {
>        width: 500px;
>        height: 500px;
>        background-size: 50px 50px;
>        background-repeat: extend;
> }
> div:nth-child(1) {
>        background-image: radial-gradient(cover, red, blue);
> }
> div:nth-child(2) {
>        background-image: url(radial-gradient-cover-red-blue.png);
> }
> For browsers and platforms that support "background-repeat: extend;" (someday) but can't or won't support radial-gradient, this would be a very useful consistency to have in CSS.

I'll assume you meant 'contain' on the radial-gradient(), because
otherwise the answer is trivial.

There's no particular reason for them to render differently, but
neither is there any particular reason for them to render the same.
I'm ambivalent on the matter.


Received on Tuesday, 20 September 2011 22:34:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:04 UTC