W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > December 2013

Re: [css-shapes] LC feedback

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 11:17:43 +1100
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDA6yk0At+ab2F88a_CUudnsK-_CS3SOeS4+s_8uzjKb8Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sylvain Galineau <galineau@adobe.com>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Sylvain Galineau <galineau@adobe.com> wrote:
> 4. Shapes from Image [2]
>
> What happens when the image would require 2+ paths to enclose the specified
> pixels is currently undefined.
>
> Imagine a simple image with, from top to bottom:
> - A black fully opaque (alpha=1) rectangle
> - A white fully transparent (alpha=0) rectangle
> - Last, another black fully opaque rectangle.
>
> What is the resulting float area for shape-image-threshold:0.5? Or, more
> specifically, how many float areas does this produce? Should:
>
> A. The resulting path enclose both black rectangles and thus include the
> transparent white rectangle between them?
> B. Or do we end up with one path for each of the black rectangles and
> adjoining inline elements are able to 'slide' into the area covered by the
> middle white transparent rectangle?
>
> For Level 1 my initial inclination was to consider A optimal as covers the
> primary use-cases i.e. only one float area is produced per image. But it
> seems polygons may also produce such situations e.g. by positioning vertices
> outside the reference box?

I don't understand how you would do A. You've presented a simplified
scenario where taking the axis-aligned bounding box works, but that
fails the moment you do anything less trivial.

> 6.2 The 'shape-image-threshold' Property [4]
>
> I think this section (or possibly section 4) should include a statement such
> as a the following:
>
> # The absence of any pixels with an alpha value larger than the specified
> # threshold results in an empty float area.

Yeah.

~TJ
Received on Friday, 6 December 2013 00:18:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:17 UTC