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

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 Saturday, 5 November 2011 21:18:16 UTC