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

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

From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2011 09:58:46 -0800
Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-Id: <7A150C49-FBAA-4FE6-A924-A013375D7766@gmail.com>
To: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>
I vote that we just keep the aliases. I anticipate that most people who use the keywords will alternate between 'cover' and 'contain'. But those who do want to use farthest/nearest-side/corner would probably prefer them to be all consistently named. The computed value would just be 'farthest/nearest-side/corner', which could be a problem for round-tripping, but still seems like a reasonable trade-off.


On Nov 5, 2011, at 2:17 PM, Brian Manthos wrote:

> I kind of dislike letting cover and contain "go" for CSS3, because I think for some authors that's the preferred language.
> 
> Nonetheless, if we're required to choose then I prefer:
> 	<extent-implicit> = closest-corner | closest-side | farthest-corner | farthest-side
> 
> to:
> 	<extent-implicit> = closest-corner | contain | cover | farthest-side
> 
> 
> Random observation: It's mildly amusing that alphabetical ordering is so friendly to the comparison.
> 
> -Brian
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: fantasai [mailto:fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net]
>> Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2011 1:25 PM
>> To: Brad Kemper
>> Cc: Tab Atkins Jr.; www-style@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: [css3-images] aliases for 'cover' and 'contain'
>> 
>> 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 Sunday, 6 November 2011 19:02:16 GMT

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