- From: Dennis Heuer <einz@verschwendbare-verweise.seinswende.de>
- Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2018 14:51:39 +0100
- To: www-style@w3.org
Gérard, On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 17:27:05 -0500 Gérard Talbot <www-style@gtalbot.org> wrote: > Le 2018-01-11 17:01, Dennis Heuer a écrit : > > > Hello > > > > It's embarrassing that authors hide communication behind third-party > > systems, expecting participants to create accounts... > > Dennis, > > Realistically speaking, what would you propose instead as an > alternative to give feedback to CSS specifications editors? CSS > specifications editors can be reached by using a public mailing list > (available to all) under the control of W3C. That makes sense to me. > Any public discussion forum that has no rules, no registration of > some sort will easily become chaotic, ugly, spam-infested and useless. Other authors put an email address into the document. I had to find this list myself, not knowing if they WILL actually read it. I don't like this separating behaviour... However, I wonder for a long time why no ticket/bug system supports a way of registration like for mailinglists. In case of BugZilla you even have to beg to get your account closed by the admin. Actually, one could even send tickets via emails written in wiki script. I just mean... But THEY don't want to. They want you to have an account - and they want your data! Sorry, not my day! > > From my point of view, the description for 'scroll' should be the > > description for 'fixed', and the description for 'fixed' should be > > the description only for e.g. the body or the html element. > > The <body> or the <html> element could be smaller and/or narrower > than window viewport. By definition, the <html> element does not > necessarily fills the height of the window viewport. > > Eg > http://test.csswg.org/suites/css2.1/nightly-unstable/html4/background-root-008.htm Works in my case. Actually, I'm shocked that HTML is not same as viewport because this is what is said so everywhere, i.e. w3schools asf. However, definitly, it should fill its own viewport and be same with it. Why reaching outside (in an exposé of html pages or similar) is unclear to me. But even then there should be a viewport element to reach directly > - - - - - > > 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'. > > Interactive test on 'background-attachment': 'local' versus 'scroll' > versus 'fixed' values > http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/CSS3Backgrounds/background-attachment-349.html I guess that they just mixed up the paragraphs a bit. But you show here what I criticize in general. If we stick to elements, we don't need complicated names. If we break down choices to mandatory and optional/additive choices, we get rid of conflicting settings. I'd prefer keywords like 'fixed' and 'scroll' to be mandatory and related to the addressed element, of which there have to be as many as there are use-cases. Keywords like 'margin-box', 'border-box', 'padding-box' or 'content' are optional and rather belong to a property like background-clip. This connects to a further strange thing in css: the border image that can keep the 'middle-part'. I understand this so that then the border image is a background image. I wonder if not the property background, that allows the setting of multiple images, should set background and border image, and the rest of properties for the border would just add effects to it, like 'inset', which is a bit like 'emboss'. The property border-outset I'd rather drop or turn into an optional/additive set of values. > Interactive CSS 3 Background Tests > http://www.gtalbot.org/DHTMLSection/InteractiveCSS3BackgroundTests.html > > Gérard > --------------------------------------------------------------------- Dennis Heuer einz@verschwendbare-verweise.seinswende.de
Received on Saturday, 13 January 2018 14:23:04 UTC