W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > September 2007

Re: [CSS3 Backgrounds and Borders] border-radius

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 00:13:25 -0400
Message-ID: <46E4C465.1010308@inkedblade.net>
To: Brad Kemper <brkemper@comcast.net>, www-style@w3.org

Brad Kemper wrote:
>> Brad Kemper wrote:
>>> As a designer, I can't imagine ever wanting my curved corners to be 
>>> chopped off to a pointy juncture between top and bottom curve. I 
>>> would expect the radius to get smaller if the one specified doesn't 
>>> fit, so that a rounded-corner box remained a rounded corner box.  As 
>>> far as exploiting the effect, keeping the corners round would be a 
>>> cool way to create a cheap circle box. just specify a corner radius 
>>> of 100 inches, and then a box size of 1em x 1em. Resize the text and 
>>> get different sized circles.
>>> If you want pointy circles, you could use border images that did not 
>>> resize.
>>
>> On Aug 29, 2007, at 7:53 PM, fantasai wrote:
>>
>> Ok, makes sense to me. If the bottom of the box had a zero border-radius,
>> would you allow the top border-radius to extend past 50% of the box 
>> height?
>> E.g. 100% to make a half-circle?
> 
> That's an interesting point. I can see both arguments:
> 
> 1. By limiting the radius to 50% or the box height and width, if you 
> specified just one radius for the box, and then had zero radius for one 
> corner, then the other three corners would still match each other. If 
> you used JavaScript to change just one corner to zero radius, you would 
> probably not expect the corner above or below it to double in size.
> 
> 2. There would be plenty of times though when you would want the the 
> radius to be the full height of the box, such as when you apply the top 
> rounded corners to the headline and the bottom rounded corners to some 
> footer text. Or if you just wanted a rounded corners "tab" type of 
> effect sticking up above the main block.
> 
> I suspect that the second option would be more important in more cases. 
> For the first option, the negative points would just be a consequence of 
> saying that you wanted the corners radiuses to be as large as possible.
> 
> So, if there was a "max-corner-radius", I would prefer it to default not 
> to "50%", but to "implicit", that is, to as large as it can be which 
> still maintaining a quarter-circle shape.

Ok.

>> What about more than 100% of the box height (the bottom corners would 
>> be < 90deg)?
> 
>  I don't think I understand the question. If you mean less than 90 of 
> arc on the rounded corner, I don't  think I would ever want that. At 
> that point, it becomes a different shape, not a quarter circle anymore, 
> and would be better handled by the limitless shapes of border-images. 

What I meant by more than 100% of the box height is e.g.
border-radius 2in on a 1in box. The bottom corner would,
if you drew a tangent line to the arc, also be less than
90deg, like this:

               ###########
            #            #
          #              #
         #               #
        ##################

~fantasai
Received on Monday, 10 September 2007 04:13:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:52 GMT