W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > March 2014

Re: [css-masking] boxes

From: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 22:24:49 +0000
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <9BEFD957-8F80-49BB-BEC9-81867672A8C5@adobe.com>
Hi,

The SVG WG agreed to rename the keywords fill and stroke (used for clip-path, mask-origin and mask-clip) to fill-box and stroke-box.

I already updated the CSS Masking spec[1].

Greetings,
Dirk

[1] http://dev.w3.org/fxtf/css-masking-1/#the-clip-path

On Mar 5, 2014, at 5:56 PM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:

> On 03/05/2014 03:07 AM, Dirk Schulze wrote:
>> 
>> On Mar 5, 2014, at 9:58 AM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> # <shape-box> | fill | stroke | view-box
>>> 
>>> Seems to me maybe fill and stroke should be fill-box and stroke-box?
>>> To be consistent that they're all part of the same set of keywords
>>> selecting a type of box?
>> 
>> This was proposed during the F2F but rejected. The WG wanted to avoid
>> “box” since it does not reflect the terminology that we came up with
>> for boxes. Even if we have content-box, padding-box and margin-box,
>> it was said that we don’t want to continue using the wrong terminology
>> for new keywords.
> 
> I don't think this reasoning is benefiting authors in this case
> and is prioritizing pedanticness over usability. Usability should
> win.
> 
> ~fantasai
> 
Received on Thursday, 6 March 2014 22:25:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 6 March 2014 22:25:19 UTC