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: Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 11:17:21 +1300
Message-ID: <11e306600902091417l6e2589b4jc785c07ef0bb31ab@mail.gmail.com>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 10:40 AM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>wrote:

> 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.

But no-one's shipped with "box-shadow" or "border-radius" yet, so we could
change the names without breaking actual content.

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.

I don't mind either way, as long as the Brad's "disable box-shadow when
border-image is specified" proposal is not adopted with the name unchanged.

"He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are
healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his
own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all." [Isaiah
Received on Monday, 9 February 2009 22:17:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:24 UTC