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.

~fantasai
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