Re: [css-backgrounds] Re:CSS Backgrounds and Borders Module Level 3 and border-attachment

On 01/15/2018 05:44 PM, Dennis Heuer wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 14:44:31 -0800
> fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:
> 
>>>> - - - - -
>>>>
>>>> Maybe (mere suggestions):
>>>>
>>>> 'fixed' should have been named 'fixed-in-viewport' or
>>>> 'fixed-within-viewport' or something like that.
>>>>
>>>> 'scroll' should have been named 'fixed-in-element' or
>>>> 'fixed-within-element'.
>>>>
>>>> 'local' should have been named 'not-fixed'.
>>
>> I agree the names are sub-optimal. Unfortunately when the 'overflow'
>> property was created, the CSSWG picked a behavior for 'scroll' that
>> imho didn't make any sense--affixing the background to the scroll
>> container rather than to its contents--and then we had to come up
>> with another keyword that meant “scroll with the contents”. :/
>>
>> But it is, alas, not something we can fix now.
> 
> Deprecate the old keywords and give new ones. Because fixed and scroll
> behave compatible as long as they ain't followed by the optional
> keywords 'margin-box' ... 'content', only local is an issue. One can
> still support it for backwards compatibility.

There is a non-trivial cost to adding aliases for existing CSS syntax
that is sub-optimally named. The cost is:

   * specification time
       (this is minimal)
   * implementation time
       (this is not huge, but it takes away from other work)
   * testing time
       (ditto)
   * mostly-unnecessary loss of backwards compatibility
       (for pages which switch to the new syntax)
   * author confusion
       (are these keywords different or the same as the others?
        Well, they are the same, but different in terms of browser support...)
   * author mental load
       (more things to learn and memorize; more to teach and more bloated reference texts)

The last three are the biggest costs, as there are millions of authors
and users who are potentially affected. In some cases, where we think
there is a *very* significant benefit to a renaming, we will do it. But
in most cases we judge the costs to be not worth the (slight) benefit
of a better name.

~fantasai

Received on Tuesday, 16 January 2018 20:34:46 UTC