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

Re: [css-shapes][css-masking] Not specified basic shape

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>
Message-ID: <BF489BB5-8ED9-426F-A3F6-8252B84767DB@adobe.com>

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 The proposal is obsolete now.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].)


[1] http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-shapes-2/#shape-inside-property

> Thanks,
> Alan
Received on Monday, 23 December 2013 06:57:27 UTC

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