- From: Gérard Talbot <www-style@gtalbot.org>
- Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 10:43:40 -0500
- To: François REMY <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com>
- Cc: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Le 2017-12-04 14:49, François REMY a écrit : > I furthermore disagree with the statement that says it is confusing > that "border: something" resets "border-image", I find it unexpected because it is imbalanced and inconsequent. > I really like when a > property resets all the properties that have the same prefix, and find > it confusing otherwise. Shouldn't "border: 3px solid white" also reset a border-radius declaration then? Shouldn't "font: 20px serif" also reset a previously declared font-size-adjust? I am following your line of reasoning here. > If as an author you write "border: 3px solid > white" you want a "3px solid white" border, and not sometimes this > turn into non-white border because another rule in the document did > set a border-image previously. The thing is: border-image covers the border-box area, not just the border belt. And border-image paints above the border belt. So, by itself and of itself, it is an extra layer *above* the border box. And even further than the border box with border-image-outset. border-image has little to do with the border belt by definition. > Regardless of my own preference, I am not sure we have a point strong > enough to cause all browsers not to follow the spec and have to fix > their implementation as there is a real cost involved here and I'd > rather spend the time fixing something useful than tweaking the > behavior of a property that, as you mention, has minimal use anyway. I think border-image is incorrect description/identifier for property name because of what it does and because of what it can do. Gérard
Received on Friday, 15 December 2017 15:44:11 UTC