- From: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
- Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2013 06:56:45 +0000
- To: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>
- CC: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Dec 23, 2013, at 12:00 AM, Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com> wrote: > On 12/22/13, 1:32 PM, "Dirk Schulze" <dschulze@adobe.com> wrote: > >> >> I forgot to mention another possibility: changing the syntax. >> >> auto | <basic-shape> <box>? | <image> >> >> In which case you can not switch <basic-shape> and <box> unless the >> syntax is changed to: >> >> auto | <basic-shape> <box>? | <box> <basic-shape> | <image> > > What’s the motivation for fixing the order? I want to be able to specify a > <basic-shape> with no box, a <box> with no basic shape, or both together. > Allowing the together version to be in either order seems like a good > thing to me. Right, I just got it after your last response. I thought that you maybe don’t just want to have a <basic-shape> as alternative to the current syntax. The proposal is obsolete now. I wonder if ‘clip-path’ should take ‘border-radius’ into account as well (as ’shape-outside’ does). I can imagine that users want to use ‘clip-path’ in combination with ’shape-outside’ or ‘shape-inside’. In a second version of the spec I could even imagine support for the keyword ’shape-outside’. (IMO it is not obvious enough that ‘outside-shape’ belongs to the ’shape-outside’ property [1].) Greetings, Dirk [1] http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-shapes-2/#shape-inside-property > > Thanks, > > Alan >
Received on Monday, 23 December 2013 06:57:27 UTC