W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2015

Fwd: Difference between background-position and background-origin.

From: Arup Rakshit <arup.rakshit@cognitiveclouds.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 21:40:36 +0530
Message-ID: <CAFK-JewTcZKjfDs0DNAFwHy=s4hdrWOjbqU=AzXh5uG0=vrE+w@mail.gmail.com>
To: www-style@w3.org
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Arup Rakshit <arup.rakshit@cognitiveclouds.com>
Date: Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 9:39 PM
Subject: Re: Difference between background-position and background-origin.
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>


On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 10:03 PM, fantasai
<fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:
> On 08/14/2015 07:01 PM, Simon Fraser wrote:
>>
>>
>> It’s a shame that background-origin was so-named. An origin is a point,
>> but background-origin is about which area to use. Perhaps background-area
>> or background-box would have been better names.
>
>
> We asked for better names multiple times, and nobody suggested any. :(
>
> One problem with background-area and background-box, btw, is that we also
> have the background-clip property which is also a kind of background
> area/box.
>
>> Perhaps we could alias this property to a new one with a less confusing
>> name?
>
>
> I think at this point it's too late to be worth bothering with. If it was
> really super messed up and we had a much better alternative (like word-wrap,
> which we renamed to overflow-wrap), it might be worth it. But I think it's
> not too terrible.
>
> ~fantasai
>

Hi,

I am very new, I don't able to understand how to follow and read the
specs correctly. I am currently reading from
http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/REC-CSS2-20110607/#minitoc . But I don't see
the links you have given are part of the specs I am reading. What is
the standard documentation which I should follow ?


Arup
Received on Tuesday, 18 August 2015 16:11:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 18 August 2015 16:11:10 UTC