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

Re: [css3-background] border-radius: none

From: Sebastian Zartner <sebastianzartner@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 07:29:09 +0100
Message-ID: <CAERejNaLSM0ZcmYz2F+CqgnQtonZo+Am66JTR3eTLmZKebqVZA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@kozea.fr>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 8:31 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 6:52 AM, Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@kozea.fr> wrote:
> > A designer colleague just wrote `border-radius: none` (to override a less
> > specific declaration) and wasted some time trying to "make it work"
> before
> > figuring out that they needed `border-radius: 0`.
> >
> > Would it make sense to extend the border-radius property (and its
> longhands)
> > to accept the 'none' keyword that would compute to the same as '0' ?
>
> I'm not strongly opposed, but I don't like aliases that don't provide
> clear value.  I'm not sure about this one.
>
> On the other hand, "none" is turning out to be a convention in a lot
> of properties to mean "don't do anything", and spreading the
> convention around can be good for authors.  Right now we're mostly
> using "none" just for list-valued properties, but a few others already
> have it (even 2.1 properties, like list-style-image and
> list-style-type), and I wouldn't mind making it a general design rule
> that properties should try to include a "none" value that means "don't
> do anything".
>

I may be mistaken but the difference of properties allowing "none" as value
to border-radius is that they all take keywords or functions as value while
border-radius currently only takes numeric values. So in my eyes allowing
it for border-radius doesn't bring any additional value. On the other hand
it doesn't harm to introduce it, either.

Sebastian
Received on Wednesday, 14 November 2012 06:37:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:21:02 GMT