- From: Dennis Heuer <einz@verschwendbare-verweise.seinswende.de>
- Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 02:44:17 +0100
- To: www-style@w3.org
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. > > ~fantasai > 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. Regards, --------------------------------------------------------------------- Dennis Heuer einz@verschwendbare-verweise.seinswende.de
Received on Tuesday, 16 January 2018 02:09:56 UTC