- From: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
- Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 09:02:11 +0000
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Apr 23, 2014, at 10:42 AM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote: > 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. I do not have a strong opinion either way. For ‘box’ one can argue: * a box is usually rectangular and this masking operation is rectangular. An important hint for SVG with arbitrary shapes. * box is shorter than border * SVG doesn’t have borders. (Which we have to deal with all over the place, so no big deal.) I am fine with changing it to mask-border* if members of the WGs agree. Greetings, Dirk > > ~fantasai >
Received on Wednesday, 23 April 2014 09:02:43 UTC