- From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 07:35:10 -0800
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: Pavel Curtis <pavelc@microsoft.com>, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>, www-style <www-style@w3.org>
> On Feb 5, 2014, at 6:36 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > > [please don't top-post http://wiki.csswg.org/tools/www-style] > >> On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 6:31 PM, Pavel Curtis <pavelc@microsoft.com> wrote: >> Did the WG consider using the terms 'content rectangle', 'padding rectangle', etc. for the problematic foursome? > > It was suggested, but we didn't spend much time on thinking up names, > so no suggestion was seriously considered. > > "* rectangle" might be a decent answer, except that it's not actually > a rectangle when border-radius/Shapes are in effect. I wouldn't consider that a reason to reject it. Border-radius doesn't affect the shape of the content box or margin box, so it is really just a decoration of the rectangle. I prefer "border box", "padding box", etc. because they are well established, and are part of what we are calling the "box" (primary rectangle) that exists theoretically before it is fragmented (a span that exists in a theoretical single line box before it is fragmented into multiple lines, for example). When shapes are in effect, they are no longer necessarily any shape that even resembles a box or rectangle or any other word we'd likely want to use here, unless we are going to start talking about the "border shape" or "padding mass" or "content rectomorph" or something. That seems awkward, and unlikely to fit in all the situations where we talk about these "boxes".
Received on Thursday, 6 February 2014 15:35:40 UTC