W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > September 2012

Re: [css-compositing][css-filters] enable-background vs isolation

From: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 09:16:59 +0200
Message-ID: <CAGN7qDB6EMP_0mVxhxR=Utzm7Onn3=rW9GTMk+W1Vjs4bpVC5A@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 3:42 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 6:29 AM, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com> wrote:
> > All,
> >
> > in response to feedback on the mailing list and working group
> > discussions, it was decided to deprecate 'enable-background' [1] and
> > replace it with 'isolation' [2].
> > The problem now is that we will need to preserve 'enable-background'
> > since there is existing content that relies on it.
> >
> > We want to change the spec wording so these 2 properties 'shadow' each
> > other. So if you set 'isolation' to 'isolate', 'enable-background'
> > will change to 'new'. The last property that is set, would always win.
> > The SVG WG had a discussion that this 'shadowing' is also going to
> > happen (and be documented) for certain font properties so it's most
> > likely OK for us to do the same.
> >
> > Does anyone have an issue with this?
> >
> > Rik
> >
> > 1:
> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/FXTF/raw-file/tip/filters/index.html#EnableBackgroundProperty
> > 2: http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-compositing-20120816/#enable-background:-)
>
> Existing content is the only reason to ever alias things. ^_^
>
> We have an agreed-upon way to do aliasing - make the deprecated
> property a shorthand for the good property.


'isolate' and 'enable-background' have different values: 'new' vs 'isolate'
so it's not just aliased.
I'm unsure if that makes a difference.

Rik
Received on Tuesday, 18 September 2012 07:17:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:21:00 GMT