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

Re: [css3-background] Issues and Proposed Resolutions

From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 22:30:00 -0700
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <20080519053000.GA25723@pickering.dbaron.org>

On Tuesday 2008-05-13 23:28 -0700, fantasai wrote:
> Bert and I went through all the open CSS3 Backgrounds and Borders issues
> on Monday. Here are our conclusions. If there are no objections, we plan
> to close the first three categories with the resolutions suggested below
> after next week's telecon. (The last category needs further discussion.)

> Feature Requests to Reject
> --------------------------

> Add 'transparent' keyword for centerless border images.
>   http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Tracker/issues/28 ISSUE-28
>
>   Reject. The use case is saving the implementation some effort.
>   However, Bert and I don't think anyone is going to bother using
>   this keyword, and it complicates the syntax.
>
>   http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/css/20080512#l-333

I have mixed feelings about this one; I think it might save authors
some effort as well.


> Issues to Close With Changes
> ----------------------------

> 'bounding-box' and 'continuous' should affect blocks differently in multi-col
>   http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Tracker/issues/43 ISSUE-43
>
>   Resolve: Fix 'bounding-box' definition for block to match the
>   definition for inlines.
>
>   http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/css/20080512#l-162

ISSUE-43 doesn't actually seem to point to any of the correct
messages for this issue.  Are you referring to to defining it so it
works when the box is sliced vertically rather than horizontally?
(i.e., a lot like ISSUE-47, except for block vs. inline rather than
for different text directions?

> Proposal for 'no-clip' value for 'background-clip'.
>   http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Tracker/issues/16 ISSUE-16
>
>   Resolve: Add 'no-clip' value to 'background-clip', mark "at risk".
>
>   http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/css/20080512#l-447

This really doesn't fit well with the model of what backgrounds are,
and it's quite a bit of work to implement correctly (since it means
that repaints required for dynamic changes can extend outside the
element in complicated ways).

I also haven't seen a strong use case given.

I'd prefer not adding this.

> Add "spread" value to 'box-shadow'.
>   http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Tracker/issues/41 ISSUE-41
>
>   Resolve: Add "spread" as optional fourth length value after "blur".
>
>   http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/css/20080512#l-503

Is the idea that a spread is like a blur, but not blurry?

Note that the text in the spec differs from the proposal in the
issue in that the text in the spec implies that spread causes
curvature at the edges, whereas the text in the issue implies that
the corners remain square.

If the former was intended, you need to define what negative spreads
do.

> Rename 'background-origin' to 'background-box'
>   http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Tracker/issues/46 ISSUE-46
>
>   Resolve: Bert and I tentatively accept this suggestion, but are open
>   to better names.
>
>   http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/css/20080512#l-715
>   http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/css/20080513#l-3

I don't think this is a good name, since it then becomes unclear how
the property is different from 'background-clip'.  Given that there
are *two* boxes involved (currently called origin and clip), I don't
think either should just be called "box".

-David

-- 
L. David Baron                                 http://dbaron.org/
Mozilla Corporation                       http://www.mozilla.com/
Received on Monday, 19 May 2008 05:30:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:55:06 GMT