- From: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
- Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 22:24:49 +0000
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Hi, The SVG WG agreed to rename the keywords fill and stroke (used for clip-path, mask-origin and mask-clip) to fill-box and stroke-box. I already updated the CSS Masking spec[1]. Greetings, Dirk [1] http://dev.w3.org/fxtf/css-masking-1/#the-clip-path On Mar 5, 2014, at 5:56 PM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote: > On 03/05/2014 03:07 AM, Dirk Schulze wrote: >> >> On Mar 5, 2014, at 9:58 AM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote: >> >>> # <shape-box> | fill | stroke | view-box >>> >>> Seems to me maybe fill and stroke should be fill-box and stroke-box? >>> To be consistent that they're all part of the same set of keywords >>> selecting a type of box? >> >> This was proposed during the F2F but rejected. The WG wanted to avoid >> “box” since it does not reflect the terminology that we came up with >> for boxes. Even if we have content-box, padding-box and margin-box, >> it was said that we don’t want to continue using the wrong terminology >> for new keywords. > > I don't think this reasoning is benefiting authors in this case > and is prioritizing pedanticness over usability. Usability should > win. > > ~fantasai >
Received on Thursday, 6 March 2014 22:25:19 UTC