W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > November 2011

Re: [css3-images] aliases for 'cover' and 'contain'

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2011 13:25:00 -0700
Message-ID: <4EB59B9C.8020608@inkedblade.net>
To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
CC: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On 11/04/2011 07:30 PM, Brad Kemper wrote:
> On Nov 4, 2011, at 1:29 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr."<jackalmage@gmail.com>  wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 1:02 PM, fantasai<fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>  wrote:
>>> Hm. So I'd suggest dropping cover/contain, and adding them back when we
>>> have asymmetrical radials. Then
>>>
>>> radial-gradient(from 25px 25px to cover, blue, transparent)
>>>
>>> could represent a centered ellipse that covers the box and has a gradient
>>> focus at 25px 25px.
>>
>> I'm cool with that.  Then 'cover' and 'contain' will have somewhat
>> simpler and more useful meanings in Images 4.
>
> I don't understand. Wouldn't the meanings be the same in both cases? It seems confusing for it to on,y have meaning in the context of asymmetrical radials. Also, 'cover' and 'contain' are the two most popular ways of writing the<size>, and easier than remembering whether it is near or far sides or corners you want.

Given the latest formulation for CSS3/4, I don't mind which set we keep
for CSS3, but I still think we should only keep one...

~fantasai
Received on Saturday, 5 November 2011 20:28:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:46 GMT