W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > December 2013

Re: [css-masking][css4-background][css-images] 9-part sliced images (was: [css4-background] 9-part slicing images in background-image)

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 12:44:35 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDCOmdSYV2vonGnPZNEEud6KtkqZ1rqvxMQUKXCFFTLNOQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
Cc: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>, Jet Villegas W3C <w3c@junglecode.net>, Dean Jackson <dino@apple.com>, "liam@w3.org" <liam@w3.org>, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, Simon Fraser <simon.fraser@apple.com>
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 12:31 PM, Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> On the CSS call today, Simon brought up the 9-part slicing images proposal from Dean as an alternative to 'mask-box' (implemented as '-webkit-mask-box-image' in WebKit and Blink and shipping by default)[1].
> The proposal is more of an idea and far away of a concrete draft. I fully agree with Tab that such an intend should be done as a property independent CSS image rather than a part of background.
> There are some parts on 'border-image' and 'mask-box’ (which both are a way to do 9-part sliced images today) that are very useful. One of them is the repetition of individual tiles rather than stretching. This is very useful and practical with the named properties and allows some useful effects like the stamp effect that people try to imitate. An example can be found at the end of the document here [2].
> I wonder if a sliced-image() function (or however we would name it) can provide all the possibilities without getting too complex itself. Just as comparison: 'border-image' and 'mask-box' have 5 longhand properties. All the functionality needs to be placed in such a function.
> I would like to hear the opinion of web developers if they prefer 9-sliced images or individual properties.

I believe that things like this should first be attempted as
functions, and if they end up too complex (which it probably will), we
just give up and try to add it to SVG instead.  The only problem there
is that we don't have an easy way to embed SVG in CSS, which is a
problem we can and should fix separately.

Received on Wednesday, 18 December 2013 20:45:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:38 UTC