Re: [css-masking] lc issue 2: rename mask-* properties

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