W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2009

Re: [CSSWG] Minutes and Resolutions 2009-02-04: box-shadow and border-image

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2009 13:40:28 -0800
Message-ID: <4990A2CC.6020306@inkedblade.net>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>, robert@ocallahan.org, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>

Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> 
> Fwiw, I support changing the name of box-shadow to border-shadow, if
> it helps the conceptual unification.  After all, since it responds to
> border-radius, it is *not* actually a box shadow (as border-radius
> doesn't alter the box - the cut out bits of the corners are still
> opaque to events).  If we ever *do* support more complex shadow edges,
> or more complex border edges in general, it will become even more
> inaccurate.  There's some cognitive dissonance with calling it a
> border property too, but I personally don't think it's as bad (and can
> reconcile it with the fact that it's a 'shadow').

The problem with changing names of properties at this late stage is
that people are already using the existing names in their style sheets.
This module is so well advanced implementation-wise that you see things
like
   -webkit-border-radius
   -moz-border-radius
   border-radius
in tutorials etc. I agree 'corner-radius' would have been a better name.
And there are good arguments for 'border-shadow' instead of 'box-shadow'.
But I'm not convinced that these are strong enough reasons to change the
name at this point.

~fantasai
Received on Monday, 9 February 2009 21:41:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:16 GMT