- From: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>
- Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 10:27:15 -0700
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On 10/8/13 9:37 AM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 3:58 AM, Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com> wrote:
>> Well, it's not *exactly* like margins, since margins don't define
>>rounded
>> corners. If we're not requiring all four values, then we're back to
>> minting a keyword to separate the rounded corner values:
>>
>> inset-rect( <shape-arg>{1,4} [ round <shape-arg>{1,2} ]? )
>>
>> In which case we should have the same keyword in rectangle():
>>
>> rectangle( <shape-arg>{4,4} [ round <shape-arg>{1,2} ]? )
>
>This seems really good to me, actually. I do now prefer rectangle()
>to stay close to SVG, in anticipation of another function that uses a
>radial-gradient()-like syntax, but I like inset-rect() in this form,
>and I agree with both the disambiguation and parallel structure
>arguments. Plus, I simply like having the extension point for
>corner-shape built in right away.
>
>This still makes me think that we should just use border-radius
>shorthand for the corner sizes, though. That would mean a / between
>the two numbers if you want to specify both rx and ry, but that's
>easy. The grammar would just be:
>
>inset-rect( <shape-arg>{1,4} [ round <'border-radius'> ]? )
>rect( <shape-arg>{4,4} [ round <'border-radius'> ]? )
>
>I know, SVG doesn't have this, but I've been bitten by that lack
>before, when wanting to do certain types of rounded corners that CSS
>can do, and had to fall back to a much less readable <path> instead.
OK, I'll make the change to <border-radius>. You've felt the lack in SVG,
and people do really like their <border-radius> shenanigans.
Thanks,
Alan
Received on Tuesday, 8 October 2013 17:27:42 UTC