On Jan 4, 2014, at 2:05 AM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jan 3, 2014, at 12:06 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> Liam, searching for "16 slice scaling¡± gives no results for 16 slice scaling but exclusively for ¡°9 slice scaling¡±. I fear that 16 tiles is too complex to handle for authors anyway. I am not even sure which graphics tool does support 16 tiles today. Do you have more information about current support for 16 slice scaling in productive tooling? >> >> We have definitely discussed a 5x5 image-slicing syntax for >> border-image and for sliced images in general, in addition to the >> current 3x3. As Liam points out, it has precedent in page margin >> boxes with good reason, and is used in print a decent bit. > > Yep. Even 5x3 would be go a long way, but 5x5 would be even better. Here are a few examples: > > http://www.makeyourmarkstamps.co.uk/cms_media/images/500x500_fitbox-p1803_84x56l.jpg (5x3) > > http://www.clker.com/cliparts/f/9/8/3/12746343281334720088art_nouveau_ink_picture_frame_by_enchantedgal_stock-md.png (imagine small stretching tiles in between the corner tiles and the edge-centered tiles) > > http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-bmZQj9ZSWqw/TsycElFcpaI/AAAAAAAABaA/SF7AQ9ywcgI/s1600/frame2.jpg > > http://cdn.vectorstock.com/i/composite/18,72/calligraphy-ornamental-decorative-frame-with-heart-vector-691872.jpg > The examples look very reasonable. The proposed syntax can be extended to support more tiles. I think we should continue with 3x3 and slowly extend the syntax as needed. Greetings, DirkReceived on Sunday, 5 January 2014 18:29:04 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 23 January 2023 02:14:36 UTC
