ISSUE-20: Does 'backgound-repeat: round' shrink or stretch images?
stretch vs shrink
Does 'backgound-repeat: round' shrink or stretch images?
- CSS3 Backgrounds and Borders
- Raised by:
- Bert Bos
- Opened on:
- 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:
- Re: [css-flexbox] Open Issues / Publishing LC? (from email@example.com on 2013-07-18)
- Re: [css3-values] inaccurate statements about syntax/grammar (from firstname.lastname@example.org on 2012-07-16)
- [CSSWG] Minutes and Resolutions Telcon 2012-05-02 [CORRECTED] (from email@example.com on 2012-05-06)
- Re: reconstructed minutes (please verify) (from firstname.lastname@example.org on 2012-05-04)
- reconstructed minutes (please verify) (from email@example.com on 2012-05-03)
- [css3-background] Issues and Proposed Resolutions (from firstname.lastname@example.org on 2008-05-13)
- ISSUE-20 (stretch vs shrink): Does 'backgound-repeat: round' shrink or stretch images? [CSS3 Backgrounds and Borders] (from email@example.com on 2008-04-04)
Closed no change.Elika Etemad, 11 Aug 2008, 10:06:25
Display change log