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

Re: [css-shapes] relative box

From: François REMY <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2013 13:26:07 +0200
Message-ID: <DUB120-DS1D62276DCA9D7A171EBAFA5170@phx.gbl>
To: "fantasai" <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, <www-style@w3.org>
Just a small message to confirm that while I was working with CSS Shapes 
during my internship this did surprise me quite a lot. I was also expecting 
rectangle(0,0,100%,100%) to be the default behavior, or close.

Choosing the box-model in use for the shape could make things much simpler 
in some cases.




-----Message d'origine----- 
From: fantasai
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2013 8:57 AM
To: www-style@w3.org
Subject: [css-shapes] relative box

2.2. Basic Shapes

   # When using this syntax to define shapes, the relevant
   # box is determined by the computed value of the
   # ‘box-sizing’ property.

I'm not sure that this makes a whole lot of sense, given
that by default floats use the margin box as their float
area, and by default box-sizing is 'content-box'.

I don't have a solution in mind, I just think this is wrong.
I think rectangle(0,0,100%,100%) should be equivalent to the
default behavior; that it's not, strikes me as inconsistent.

   # The coordinate system for the shape has its origin on
   # the top-left corner of the relevant box with the x-axis
   # running to the right and the y-axis running downwards.

This could present some problems... if you're defining a
contour that overlays an image, it's exactly what's needed,
but if the shape is relating to the arrangement of content
on the page, you might want it to be logical, like the grid
coordinates, rather than physical.

Again, I don't have a solution in mind. :( But I think we
need to have one in mind.

~fantasai
Received on Thursday, 3 October 2013 11:26:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 3 October 2013 11:26:35 UTC