- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 01:42:54 -0700
- To: www-style@w3.org
On 04/23/2014 12:08 AM, fantasai wrote: > On 04/12/2014 01:45 AM, Dirk Schulze wrote: >> Hi fantasai, >> >> LC Issue 2 [1] is still open and I would very much like to resolve >> it now. We discussed renaming all current long hand properties for >> mask-* a while back and it seems there is no one in favor for >> renaming mask-image, mask-type, mask-size and others. The structure >> of the spec got much cleaner and I do not believe that people would >> still get confused by reading the spec. Can we close this issue? > > I think it's probably okay to leave mask-* as it is, since for > simple cases thats what will be used. > > I'm still not totally happy with mask-box-*, since it's really > box-mask, but that's probably just me having English grammtatical > biases. I can't come up with anything better. :/ Well, okay, the best I can come up with is mask-border-* Because it's closer to border-image, and because by default it just covers the border area: - the default coverage area is the border area - by default, the middle part is not considered so it's very border-like in its effects. ~fantasai
Received on Wednesday, 23 April 2014 08:43:20 UTC