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

Re: [css4-background] border-corner-shape extension point?

From: Stu Cox <stuart.cox@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 09:44:02 +0000
Message-ID: <CAJ-2Ov6RvBKgCn9Q0On=81sDiV_229Bek-fnvnZb3q8j2NX5_g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Cc: Lea Verou <lea@w3.org>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
If `border-radius` and `border-corner-shape` could both be specified as
part of a shorthand property, the developer could decide how it should fall
back; e.g.:


/* Falls back to rounded corners */
.module {
    border-corner-shape: scoop;
    border-radius: 50%;
}

/* Falls back to a rectangle */
.module {
    border-corner: scoop 50%;
}


I appreciate the syntax isn't ideal... if only `border-radius` had been
named `border-corner-radius`!


Stu Cox
@stucoxmedia



On 24 March 2013 22:42, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mar 24, 2013, at 3:04 PM, Lea Verou <lea@w3.org> wrote:
>
> > True, but wouldn’t a rectangle be an even worse fallback?
>
> Maybe, maybe not. Maybe the author could have a border-radius with some
> other measurement as fallback. I think ideally (in terms of results),
> border-image would be more useful as a fallback. But I'm not sure how that
> would happen.
>
Received on Monday, 25 March 2013 09:45:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:21:07 GMT