- From: Dean Jackson <dino@apple.com>
- Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 08:32:38 +1000
- To: David Vest <davve@opera.com>
- Cc: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>, Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
At this point I suggest someone (other than me :) should volunteer to specify all this in a document somewhere. There are a lot of edge cases. Then we can implement it and see how we feel. I guess CSS backgrounds is the right place. Dean > On 16 Jun 2015, at 9:58 pm, David Vest <davve@opera.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 9:53 AM, David Vest <davve@opera.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 9:49 PM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote: >> The problem I was getting at was that if we have an SVG that's not >> scalable (no intrinsic aspect ratio) and the "image size" becomes the >> border image area, the placement of the slices will have no connection >> to the actual image. What would be eventually draw is therefore >> nonsensical and I propose we disallow this case and draw nothing >> instead. > > I realized there actually are ways (of course!) to make an SVG having > no intrinsic dimensions but still scale to the destination: percentage > based lengths. It's now (2) at: > > http://doomdavve.github.io/gists/svg-in-border-image-1.html > > Firefox especially shows the difference between (2) and (3). In (2) > there is no intrinsic ratio, so the image is just scaled to the > destination. In (3) there is and it leaves blank space instead. Can't > say I think the result is any good though. > > Now, I'm leaning towards actually doing what the spec says and divide > the border image area with slices and all and just assume the SVG can > handle it. Because there is a possibility it may. Thoughts? > > David
Received on Tuesday, 16 June 2015 22:33:12 UTC