ISSUE-20: Does 'backgound-repeat: round' shrink or stretch images?

stretch vs shrink

Does 'backgound-repeat: round' shrink or stretch images?

State:

CLOSED

Product:

CSS3 Backgrounds and Borders

Raised by:

Bert Bos

Opened on:

2008-04-04

Description:

The current draft says that 'background-repeat: round' shrinks images, if needed, so that exactly a whole number of images tiles the background. If a background image is almost as wide as the element, say 99%, that means it gets scaled down by almost 50% to make room for a second image. Should the image instead be scaled up by 1% in such a case?

Counter argument: it's rare that images are scaled down by much, because 'round' is typically used when the author expects more than two tiles; and scaling up usually makes for uglier results than scaling down.

Related Actions Items:

No related actions

Related emails:

1. Re: [css3-values] inaccurate statements about syntax/grammar (from fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net on 2012-07-16)
2. [CSSWG] Minutes and Resolutions Telcon 2012-05-02 [CORRECTED] (from fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net on 2012-05-06)
3. Re: reconstructed minutes (please verify) (from peter.linss@hp.com on 2012-05-04)
4. reconstructed minutes (please verify) (from fantasai@inkedblade.net on 2012-05-03)
5. [css3-background] Issues and Proposed Resolutions (from fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net on 2008-05-13)
6. ISSUE-20 (stretch vs shrink): Does 'backgound-repeat: round' shrink or stretch images? [CSS3 Backgrounds and Borders] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2008-04-04)

Related notes:

Display change log