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

Re: [css3-exclusions][css2.1][css3-images][cssom] <shape>

From: Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu <kanghaol@oupeng.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2012 02:12:32 +0800
Message-ID: <50479610.2040205@oupeng.com>
To: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>
CC: WWW Style <www-style@w3.org>
(12/09/05 7:36), Alan Stearns wrote:
> First, if I'm considering the use of <shape> in CSS3 Exclusions and Shapes
> (with rectangle() etc.) to be an extension of CSS2.1 <shape> (that only
> has rect()) do I need to accept a rect() value in CSS3 Exclusions and
> Shapes usage, 

I am not sure I understand your question here. If CSS3 Exclusions and
Shapes doesn't accept rect(), what's the point of "extending" CSS 2.1
<shape>?

> or is it OK to limit this new usage to the new value list?
> If rect() is not allowed as a value for shape-outside, do I need to use a
> different term?

Not necessary. You can instead state the extra restriction in prose.
However, that's somewhat hard to read and why people ask for
<positive-number>.

> Second, should CSS3 Images use some other term - since the serialization
> of the keywords in that spec will not match the 2.1 serialization?

I think so. CSSOM needs to spec how <image> is serialized eventually.

(12/09/05 8:17), Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> More generally, should we define a generic prefix for grammar
> productions that are "local", and only intended to be used within a
> particular spec?  For example, radial-gradient() could instead use a
> <~shape> production, which doesn't interact with the <shape>
> production, or with other definitions of <~shape> in other specs.

Yuk, but I am not going to have any strong opinion about a meta-syntax.



Cheers,
Kenny
-- 
Web Specialist, Oupeng Browser, Beijing
Try Oupeng: http://www.oupeng.com/
Received on Wednesday, 5 September 2012 18:13:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:59 GMT