W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > July 2009

Re: [css3-background] should radii be capped?

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 11:01:37 -0500
Message-ID: <dd0fbad0907220901r5b22de74s47f411857c859530@mail.gmail.com>
To: Fran├žois REMY <fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr>
Cc: CSS 3 W3C Group <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Fran├žois
REMY<fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr> wrote:
> Another solution would be to take in consideration the smallest side of
> the box : 100% == min(width,height)
>
> So, you would have a solution for case when you need a rounded and
> not eliptic border, but whose size is adapted to the size of the box.
>
> But, for me, the best solution would be to have a keyword to specify which
> behaviour the author want (border-radius-type: (elliptic|rounded))
>
> You would then have two behavior :
>
> border-radius: 50% elliptic; ==> A perfect ellipse
> border-radius: 5% rounded; ==> A 'sqare' rounder border (5% refering to
> the smallest length between width and height)
>
> Please note that #1 would be great too, but we must then assume that there's
> no use case for relative rounded border radius.

I considered that, but I don't know if a relatively-sized,
absolutely-shaped corner is important enough to care about.  I really
don't think I'd use one in my designs, at least.  If I want my corners
to grow and shrink with my box, I think I want them to stay shaped
with my box too.  If I'm wanting the corners to maintain a particular
shape, it's only as a side-effect of me wanting my *box* to maintain a
particular shape as well.

(That, of course, ties in to the old proposal to allow height to be
specified as a % of width, or vice-versa.)

~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 22 July 2009 16:02:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:19 GMT