W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > December 2012

Re: [css3-exclusions] Shapes depend on which box?

From: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 16:28:13 -0800
To: www-style <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CCDE8F02.1A589%stearns@adobe.com>
On 11/27/12 2:35 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 1:59 PM, Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com> wrote:
>> On 11/27/12 1:51 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com> wrote:
>>>> The current draft of the spec says that the coordinate system and
>>>>resolved
>>>> percentages for declared shapes uses the border box of the element. I
>>>>am
>>>> thinking it might make more sense to use the content box of the
>>>>element.
>>>> As it stands, specifying a 100% width and height rectangle to
>>>>shape-inside
>>>> can change how its inline content is laid out (depending on the border
>>>>and
>>>> padding). If we change the coordinate system and percentages to use
>>>>the
>>>> content box, then a 100% width and height rectangle for shape-inside
>>>> changes nothing, and modifications to percentages are relative to what
>>>> you'd get without defining a shape-inside.
>>>
>>>Your rectangle argument is convincing.  This sounds fine to me.
>>>
>>>However, people might actually want border-box sizing.  Have you given
>>>though to adding an optional <box> value to the properties, defaulting
>>>to "content-box"?
>>
>> Hmm - what if we used the value of box-sizing?
>
>That makes sense to me.  Then we can punt on manual control until it's
>proven we need it.

I have made this change.

Thanks,

Alan
Received on Saturday, 1 December 2012 00:28:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:21:03 GMT