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

Re: [css-shapes] LC feedback

From: Sylvain Galineau <galineau@adobe.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 16:38:19 -0800
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>
Message-ID: <CEC65A66.11842%galineau@adobe.com>


On 12/5/13 4:17 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:

>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.

I wouldn't say it fails; you *could* just take the bounding box that
encloses all the shapes you find. Whether the result is visually desirable
in all or most cases is a different story though. So yeah, my first
inclination is best dismissed here.

>
>> 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 00:38:47 UTC

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