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

Re: [css3-background] box-break keywords

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 10:45:25 -0800
Message-ID: <4B06E3C5.6070207@inkedblade.net>
To: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>
CC: www-style@w3.org
Simon Fraser wrote:
> On Nov 19, 2009, at 1:32 PM, fantasai wrote:
> 
>> fantasai wrote:
>>> Currently we have as keywords 'continuous' and 'each-box'. They're not
>>> very clear, and one person so far has pointed out that continuous is
>>> hard to spell.
>>> How about 'slice' and 'separate'?
>>>  box-break: slice;    /* Draw backgrounds and borders as if box was 
>>> not                           broken, then slice it into pieces */
>>>  box-break: separate; /* Draw backgrounds and borders separately 
>>> for                           each box: separate, then draw */
>>
>> Based on the discussion at the telecon this week
>>  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009Nov/0265.html
>> I have decided to change the property syntax from
>>  box-break: continuous | each-box
>> to
>>  box-break: slice | clone
>>
>> Everyone agreed that 'slice' was a clear mnemonic. I chose 'clone'
>> because each box gets its own copy of the background and border.
>> It is not 'repeat' because the background and border are not merely
>> repeating the result: each box gets its own complete set of border
>> and background bits, which are applied to the box's own size and
>> position.
>>
>> Since this is not a WG resolution, I am open to changing it if we
>> have consensus on a better proposal. But I think it's pretty good.
> 
> Didn't we decide that the property name should change to something like 
> "box-decoration-break"?

Uh, right. That's what I meant to type. :) I got it right in the spec
at least! That's the important part.

~fantasai
Received on Friday, 20 November 2009 18:46:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:22 GMT