W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > January 2008

Re: [css3-background] background-size vs background-stretch

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 03:17:55 -0500
Message-ID: <4791B233.7050606@inkedblade.net>
To: www-style@w3.org

Aleksey V Lazar wrote:
> hello:
>> E.g. we picked 'image-position' as a name instead of
>> 'replaced-element-position' even though it applies to plugins and other
>> replaced elements, not just images, because it allows designers to more
>> easily relate to what it means. 
> I think in this case dropping "replaced-" was a good idea, but changing 
> "element" to "image" was not. Now this property is not as descriptive of 
> its scope as it could be.  I'm not at all persuaded this is easier to 
> understand, as the name implies it is for images only.

It doesn't apply to most elements, though. It applies mostly to images
and other embedded items.

Received on Saturday, 19 January 2008 08:18:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:58 GMT