[css-backgrounds-4] Decide on name for shorthand covering everything `background-*` except `background-color`

[SebastianZ]

In #8726 we resolved to add a shorthand for background-* minus background-color.

We didn't decide on its name yet, though. I already listed the current suggestions in the other issue, but here they are again:

• background-layer
• background-overlay
• background-stack
• background-list
• background-canvas
• background-pattern
• background-sheet
• background-screen
• background-cover
• background-slice
• background-image-stack
• background-media
• background-image-list
• background-image-layer

Straw poll (split into two comments due to the amount of suggestions):
#9083 (comment)
#9083 (comment)

Sebastian

[fantasai]

Copying from #8726 (comment)

What about background-overlay? That addresses both of the concerns I raised:

• It more clearly refers to the part of the background overlaying the color. (The background color is itself, functionally, a layer of the background so background-layer is confusing in this respect.)
• It can be interpreted in a collective sense, so it doesn't feel odd that it's not plural.

Copying from #8726 (comment)

I think it's worth noting that we have a similar pattern of properties for fill, and might want to use the same name there: https://drafts.fxtf.org/fill-stroke-3/ (So we should pick a name that works for both.)

[SebastianZ]

I still slightly prefer the initially suggested background-layer over the others. Though I am ok with background-overlay.

I am ruling out some for myself here, which I think don't fit well.

• background-pattern While "pattern" indicates that the solid color is excluded, it somewhat sounds like it allows creating simple patterns and not to the images.
• background-screen "screen" refers to the monitor in virtually all contexts, not to a layer.
• background-cover "cover" rather has a meaning of a single thing, like a book cover, not of multiple layers.
• background-slice We already have border-image-slice which refers to slicing an image. So "slice" here may rather confuse authors.
• background-image-stack This conveys the idea of different image layers, though it looks like a longhand of background-image while it actually is a shorthand for it and the other background-* properties.
• background-media "media" sounds like it covers images, videos and other types of media.
• background-image-list Same reason as with background-image-stack.
• background-image-layer Same reason as with background-image-stack.

Sebastian

[SebastianZ]

To make progress on this, let's get some straw poll for the different suggestions. As there are many, I'll split them up into several comments. Please add your name besides the entry your prefer or add your vote to the comment. (I've added the names of members who expressed their opinion on one of the proposals in #8726.)

• 👎🏻 Abstain (0):
• 👍🏻 background-layer (3): @SebastianZ, @LeaVerou, @Crissov
• 😄 background-overlay (1): @fantasai
• 🎉 background-stack (0):
• ❤️ background-list (0):
• 🚀 background-canvas (0):
• 👀 background-pattern (0):

[SebastianZ]

• 👍🏻 background-sheet (0):
• 😄 background-screen (0):
• 🎉 background-cover (0):
• ❤️ background-image-stack (0):
• 🚀 background-image-list (0):
• 👀 background-image-layer (0):

Note that I explicitly left out background-slice and background-media, because I think they miss the idea behind that property. If somebody thinks differently, please leave a comment!

[Loirooriol]

I will object to adding background-image-whatever as a shorthand of background-image.

[jonjohnjohnson]

background-texture?

[fantasai]

We went with color-layers() in #8431 (comment) so I think we should definitely not go with the singular background-layer here. :)

(I think background-layers doesn't convey as well as background-overlay that it doesn't include the background-color layer, so I'm not totally convinced. But at least it doesn't have the singularity weirdness of background-layer.)

[SebastianZ]

We went with color-layers() in #8431 (comment) so I think we should definitely not go with the singular background-layer here. :)

I want to point out that all list-valued properties so far have singular names, e.g. transition, animation, box-shadow, and so do all background-* properties. So, even when it's clearer using the plural version here, it breaks consistency. That said, I don't have a strong opinion on this.

What I do have a strong opinion about is the lack of votings so far. It would be great if we got some more opinions on this, so we can resolve on a name.

Sebastian

[JoshTumath]

I'm also voting for background-layer. To me it seems the most self-explanatory.

[SebastianZ]

While there wasn't much feedback, the votes clearly lean towards background-layer. So I think it's fine to resolve on this.

@astearns I propose to resolve on naming the shorthand background-layer asynchronously.

Sebastian

[astearns]

I’d like @fantasai to weigh in first since in her last comment she was opposed to background-layer