[css3-background] box-break keywords

[fantasai]

Currently we have as keywords 'continuous' and 'each-box'. They're not
very clear, and one person so far has pointed out that continuous is
hard to spell.

How about 'slice' and 'separate'?

   box-break: slice;    /* Draw backgrounds and borders as if box was not broken, then slice it into pieces */
   box-break: separate; /* Draw backgrounds and borders separately for each box: separate, then draw */

~fantasai

[Brad Kemper]

On Oct 28, 2009, at 11:20 AM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@...>  
wrote:

> Currently we have as keywords 'continuous' and 'each-box'. They're not
> very clear, and one person so far has pointed out that continuous is
> hard to spell.
>
> How about 'slice' and 'separate'?
>
>  box-break: slice;    /* Draw backgrounds and borders as if box was  
> not broken, then slice it into pieces */
>  box-break: separate; /* Draw backgrounds and borders separately for  
> each box: separate, then draw */
>
> ~fantasai

I agree that those are better. I especially like 'slice' to describe  
that one. I'm less enthusiastic about 'separate' (the page break has a  
separating effect regardless of how the box is divided), though I  
still think it is better than 'each-box'. How about 'new-box' or  
'multi-boxes' instead of 'separate'?

 

[fantasai]

Brad Kemper wrote:

> On Oct 28, 2009, at 11:20 AM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@...>
> wrote:
>
>> Currently we have as keywords 'continuous' and 'each-box'. They're not
>> very clear, and one person so far has pointed out that continuous is
>> hard to spell.
>>
>> How about 'slice' and 'separate'?
>>
>>  box-break: slice;    /* Draw backgrounds and borders as if box was
>> not broken, then slice it into pieces */
>>  box-break: separate; /* Draw backgrounds and borders separately for
>> each box: separate, then draw */
>
> I agree that those are better. I especially like 'slice' to describe
> that one. I'm less enthusiastic about 'separate' (the page break has a
> separating effect regardless of how the box is divided), though I still
> think it is better than 'each-box'. How about 'new-box' or 'multi-boxes'
> instead of 'separate'?

I prefer 'separate'. It has a closer parallel to 'slice': both can be
used as verbs to describe what is happening. And 'separate' can also be
used as an adjective to describe the result so you get two angles for
its mnemonic.

A good analogy would be baking bread: You can "slice" it after baking,
or you can "separate" it into pieces and then bake the pieces as "separate"
loafs. (The crust is the border. :P)

~fantasai

[Brad Kemper]

On Oct 28, 2009, at 2:50 PM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@...>  
wrote:

>> How about 'new-box' or 'multi-boxes' instead of 'separate'?
>
> I prefer 'separate'. It has a closer parallel to 'slice': both can be
> used as verbs to describe what is happening. And 'separate' can also  
> be
> used as an adjective to describe the result so you get two angles for
> its mnemonic.

Understood. But the second piece of paper already separates the  
content onto two seperate pieces of paper. The real difference is that  
one value slices the content (as if with a knife) to separate the  
content, and the other value separates it by ending one box and then  
starting a new one on the next page (as if the content had been  
originally been placed into two different boxes). I don't think  
'separate' conveys the meaning as well (but better than 'each-box'  
anyway).

I also sometimes misspell 'seperate'.
     

[Sylvain Galineau]

> From: www-style-request@... [mailto:www-style-request@...] On
> Behalf Of fantasai
> Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 11:20 AM
> To: www-style@...
> Subject: [css3-background] box-break keywords
>
> Currently we have as keywords 'continuous' and 'each-box'. They're not
> very clear, and one person so far has pointed out that continuous is
> hard to spell.
>
> How about 'slice' and 'separate'?
>
>    box-break: slice;    /* Draw backgrounds and borders as if box was
> not broken, then slice it into pieces */
>    box-break: separate; /* Draw backgrounds and borders separately for
> each box: separate, then draw */
>

I like slice. My first reaction to slice/separate as a pair was to
think of sleep/standby in Windows though :) But given how clear slice is,
the other is fine. Other options that came to mind were slice/split or cut/copy.

[Stephen Zilles]

Sylvain and Fantasai,
  I could probably live with "slice" and "separate", but in reading the text it seemed to me that the property values should be "one-box" and "add-boxes" with the meaning:

    box-break: one-box;    /* Draw backgrounds and borders as if there were one box that was not broken, then slice it into pieces at the breaks. */
    box-break: add-boxes; /* At the breaks, add a new box for each segment of the content separated by breaks and draw backgrounds and borders separately for each such box.*/

Steve Zilles

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-style-request@... [mailto:www-style-request@...] On Behalf
> Of Sylvain Galineau
> Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 6:55 PM
> To: fantasai; www-style@...
> Subject: RE: [css3-background] box-break keywords
>
> > From: www-style-request@... [mailto:www-style-request@...] On
> > Behalf Of fantasai
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 11:20 AM
> > To: www-style@...
> > Subject: [css3-background] box-break keywords
> >
> > Currently we have as keywords 'continuous' and 'each-box'. They're not
> > very clear, and one person so far has pointed out that continuous is
> > hard to spell.
> >
> > How about 'slice' and 'separate'?
> >
> >    box-break: slice;    /* Draw backgrounds and borders as if box was
> > not broken, then slice it into pieces */
> >    box-break: separate; /* Draw backgrounds and borders separately for
> > each box: separate, then draw */
> >
> I like slice. My first reaction to slice/separate as a pair was to
> think of sleep/standby in Windows though :) But given how clear slice is,
> the other is fine. Other options that came to mind were slice/split or
> cut/copy.
>

[fantasai]

fantasai wrote:

> Currently we have as keywords 'continuous' and 'each-box'. They're not
> very clear, and one person so far has pointed out that continuous is
> hard to spell.
>
> How about 'slice' and 'separate'?
>
>   box-break: slice;    /* Draw backgrounds and borders as if box was not
>                           broken, then slice it into pieces */
>   box-break: separate; /* Draw backgrounds and borders separately for
>                           each box: separate, then draw */

Based on the discussion at the telecon this week
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009Nov/0265.html
I have decided to change the property syntax from
   box-break: continuous | each-box
to
   box-break: slice | clone

Everyone agreed that 'slice' was a clear mnemonic. I chose 'clone'
because each box gets its own copy of the background and border.
It is not 'repeat' because the background and border are not merely
repeating the result: each box gets its own complete set of border
and background bits, which are applied to the box's own size and
position.

Since this is not a WG resolution, I am open to changing it if we
have consensus on a better proposal. But I think it's pretty good.

~fantasai

[Robert O'Callahan-3]

On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 10:32 AM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@...> wrote:

Based on the discussion at the telecon this week

 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009Nov/0265.html
I have decided to change the property syntax from
 box-break: continuous | each-box
to
 box-break: slice | clone

Everyone agreed that 'slice' was a clear mnemonic. I chose 'clone'
because each box gets its own copy of the background and border.

 

At the risk of bikeshedding, I'd slightly prefer 'copy' over 'clone'. That's the word you just used in your explanation :-).

Rob
--
"He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all." [Isaiah 53:5-6]

[Simon Fraser-4]

On Nov 19, 2009, at 1:32 PM, fantasai wrote:

> fantasai wrote:
>> Currently we have as keywords 'continuous' and 'each-box'. They're  
>> not
>> very clear, and one person so far has pointed out that continuous is
>> hard to spell.
>> How about 'slice' and 'separate'?
>>  box-break: slice;    /* Draw backgrounds and borders as if box was  
>> not                           broken, then slice it into pieces */
>>  box-break: separate; /* Draw backgrounds and borders separately  
>> for                           each box: separate, then draw */
>
> Based on the discussion at the telecon this week
>  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009Nov/0265.html
> I have decided to change the property syntax from
>  box-break: continuous | each-box
> to
>  box-break: slice | clone
>
> Everyone agreed that 'slice' was a clear mnemonic. I chose 'clone'
> because each box gets its own copy of the background and border.
> It is not 'repeat' because the background and border are not merely
> repeating the result: each box gets its own complete set of border
> and background bits, which are applied to the box's own size and
> position.
>
> Since this is not a WG resolution, I am open to changing it if we
> have consensus on a better proposal. But I think it's pretty good.

Didn't we decide that the property name should change to something  
like "box-decoration-break"?

Simon

[Tab Atkins Jr.]

On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 5:52 PM, Simon Fraser <smfr@...> wrote:

> On Nov 19, 2009, at 1:32 PM, fantasai wrote:
>> Based on the discussion at the telecon this week
>>  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009Nov/0265.html
>> I have decided to change the property syntax from
>>  box-break: continuous | each-box
>> to
>>  box-break: slice | clone
>>
>> Everyone agreed that 'slice' was a clear mnemonic. I chose 'clone'
>> because each box gets its own copy of the background and border.
>> It is not 'repeat' because the background and border are not merely
>> repeating the result: each box gets its own complete set of border
>> and background bits, which are applied to the box's own size and
>> position.
>>
>> Since this is not a WG resolution, I am open to changing it if we
>> have consensus on a better proposal. But I think it's pretty good.
>
> Didn't we decide that the property name should change to something like
> "box-decoration-break"?

We did indeed, or at least agreed that we'd use it for now
unless/until someone comes up with something demonstrably better.

~TJ

[fantasai]

Simon Fraser wrote:

> On Nov 19, 2009, at 1:32 PM, fantasai wrote:
>
>> fantasai wrote:
>>> Currently we have as keywords 'continuous' and 'each-box'. They're not
>>> very clear, and one person so far has pointed out that continuous is
>>> hard to spell.
>>> How about 'slice' and 'separate'?
>>>  box-break: slice;    /* Draw backgrounds and borders as if box was
>>> not                           broken, then slice it into pieces */
>>>  box-break: separate; /* Draw backgrounds and borders separately
>>> for                           each box: separate, then draw */
>>
>> Based on the discussion at the telecon this week
>>  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009Nov/0265.html
>> I have decided to change the property syntax from
>>  box-break: continuous | each-box
>> to
>>  box-break: slice | clone
>>
>> Everyone agreed that 'slice' was a clear mnemonic. I chose 'clone'
>> because each box gets its own copy of the background and border.
>> It is not 'repeat' because the background and border are not merely
>> repeating the result: each box gets its own complete set of border
>> and background bits, which are applied to the box's own size and
>> position.
>>
>> Since this is not a WG resolution, I am open to changing it if we
>> have consensus on a better proposal. But I think it's pretty good.
>
> Didn't we decide that the property name should change to something like
> "box-decoration-break"?

Uh, right. That's what I meant to type. :) I got it right in the spec
at least! That's the important part.

~fantasai

[Eric A. Meyer]

    Following up on the change of values for 'box-decoration-break',
Figure 13 in section 6.1
(http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/CR-css3-background-20091217/#the-box-decoration-break)
is properly captioned but the image contains the old keywords.  They
should probably just be removed rather than replaced.

--
Eric A. Meyer (eric@...)     http://meyerweb.com/

[Brad Kemper]

On Dec 18, 2009, at 8:00 AM, Eric A. Meyer wrote:

>   Following up on the change of values for 'box-decoration-break', Figure 13 in section 6.1 (http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/CR-css3-background-20091217/#the-box-decoration-break) is properly captioned but the image contains the old keywords.  They should probably just be removed rather than replaced.
>
> --
> Eric A. Meyer (eric@...)     http://meyerweb.com/

Yes, that seems to be an oversight, as they had already been cropped in the editor's draft:

http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-background/#the-box-decoration-break