- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 10:45:25 -0800
- To: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>
- CC: www-style@w3.org
Simon Fraser wrote: > On Nov 19, 2009, at 1:32 PM, fantasai wrote: > >> fantasai wrote: >>> Currently we have as keywords 'continuous' and 'each-box'. They're not >>> very clear, and one person so far has pointed out that continuous is >>> hard to spell. >>> How about 'slice' and 'separate'? >>> box-break: slice; /* Draw backgrounds and borders as if box was >>> not broken, then slice it into pieces */ >>> box-break: separate; /* Draw backgrounds and borders separately >>> for each box: separate, then draw */ >> >> Based on the discussion at the telecon this week >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009Nov/0265.html >> I have decided to change the property syntax from >> box-break: continuous | each-box >> to >> box-break: slice | clone >> >> Everyone agreed that 'slice' was a clear mnemonic. I chose 'clone' >> because each box gets its own copy of the background and border. >> It is not 'repeat' because the background and border are not merely >> repeating the result: each box gets its own complete set of border >> and background bits, which are applied to the box's own size and >> position. >> >> Since this is not a WG resolution, I am open to changing it if we >> have consensus on a better proposal. But I think it's pretty good. > > Didn't we decide that the property name should change to something like > "box-decoration-break"? Uh, right. That's what I meant to type. :) I got it right in the spec at least! That's the important part. ~fantasai
Received on Friday, 20 November 2009 18:46:09 UTC