- From: Pavel Curtis <pavelc@microsoft.com>
- Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 02:31:33 +0000
- To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>
- CC: www-style <www-style@w3.org>
Did the WG consider using the terms 'content rectangle', 'padding rectangle', etc. for the problematic foursome? Pavel -----Original Message----- From: Tab Atkins Jr. [mailto:jackalmage@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2014 3:41 PM To: Robert O'Callahan Cc: www-style Subject: Re: Resolutions regarding fragments On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 12:02 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 7:59 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 2:51 AM, Robert O'Callahan >> <robert@ocallahan.org> >> wrote: >> > I do not understand this: >> >> >> >> dbaron: 4 wrenches: content box, padding box, border box, margin box >> >> dbaron: could use * edge, * rectangle >> >> SimonSapin: * area >> >> fantasai: area already has an incompatible definition, and these >> >> terms >> >> are used consistently all throughout our specs >> >> RESOLVED: Don't use "element", "box", or "fragment" in new terms that >> >> aren't elements, boxes, or fragments. Where possible, >> >> convert old terminology accordingly as well. >> > >> > >> > How was dbaron's issue resolved? >> >> Yeah, it wasn't. Note that the resolution covers *new* terms, and >> says to convert old terms *where possible*. We hadn't come up with >> any good names for content/etc-box, so it stays as it is for now. > > > Okay, so the current situation is: > -- 'element': straightforward > -- 'box': a logical CSS thing, doesn't really have a shape, or if it > does it's not necessarily rectangular, 1 per element except where > anonymous boxes are present > -- 'fragment': each box splits into one or more fragments > -- 'content/padding/border/margin box': one per fragment, rectangular > Is that correct? Yes. > I believe there are a number of places that need to be converted from > element to box, and also a number of places that need to be converted > from box to fragment --- especially in CSS 2.1. Are we going to retrofit CSS 2.1? > If not, I think it needs a big warning somewhere explaining how to do > the translation, especially for the parts of CSS 2.1 that haven't yet > been superceded by CSS3 modules. 2.1'll be the big project. We can at least start with the more modern specs and retrofit them - Flexbox already has some element/box confusion that needs fixing, so we can use it as a testbed for clearing up box/fragment confusion as well. > Are we going to keep talking about the "position" and "size" of a box, > given it no longer has a real shape? If so, what exactly would that mean? We really shouldn't. This'll take some time and effort to rewrite, unfortunately. ~TJ
Received on Thursday, 6 February 2014 02:32:29 UTC