There are currently no frequently asked questions associated with this exercise – that’s where you come in! You can contribute to this section by offering your own questions, answers, or clarifications on this exercise. Ask or answer a question by clicking reply () below.
If you’ve had an “aha” moment about the concepts, formatting, syntax, or anything else with this exercise, consider sharing those insights! Teaching others and answering their questions is one of the best ways to learn and stay sharp.
Join the Discussion. Help a fellow learner on their journey.
Ask or answer a question about this exercise by clicking reply () below!
Agree with a comment or answer? Like () to up-vote the contribution!
In the ‘Scaling Background Images’ portion of the “Learn Responsive Design” lesson found here, the lesson teaches about setting the CSS property background-size to cover. It explains that this will cause the image to fill the entire background of the element all while keeping its aspect ratio. It also says that if the image is bigger than the element, part of the image will be cut off. What would happen if the image were smaller than the element? Would it be stretch (proportionately) to fill the element and look pixelated or would it just be displayed at its full size but not fill the entire background?
So I have a question relation to scaling background images. I learnt that it is best practice to put all content like images and text in to a html file as html is the structure of a webpage and then the page is styled with a linked css. If an image is added/linked in a html file then how is it styled/ scaled in css? As it would require the image to be removed from the html and then added/ linked in the css with background-image: url();
I am just wanting to know what is the best practice in this case, add/ link images in the css or html?
I have also asked this question in a recent project challenge here
) below.
) to up-vote the contribution!