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

Re: [css-shapes] how to position <basic-shape>s

From: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 18:17:15 -0700
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, Sylvain Galineau <galineau@adobe.com>
CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CE95AC14.149BF%stearns@adobe.com>
On 10/29/13 5:46 PM, "fantasai" <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:

>On 10/22/2013 12:46 PM, Sylvain Galineau wrote:
>> On 10/21/13 11:15 PM, "fantasai" <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:
>>> Secondly, I am dubious as it is about consistency with SVG being
>>> of utility here, especially if it's not supported by use cases.
>>> But choosing consistency with SVG over and instead of consistency
>>> with CSS *in a CSS feature described with CSS syntax* seems a
>>> little absurd.
>> I don't think it's absurd at all, based your exact argument; because
>> nobody uses CSS in isolation. They use CSS together with HTML,
>> SVG...We should thus think of good design for the platform, not just for
>> CSS. If SVG defines some basic primitive one way and CSS another then
>> those authors who use both - a growing number in these high-DPI days -
>> have to learn multiple syntaxes and ways to do things without a clear
>> benefit. And it ain't a great way to spend tester and implementer time
>> either. To the extent SVG already has a working model to define shapes I
>> think your reasoning is exactly what makes it a natural starting point
>> at least, a valid consideration. It doesn't mean we'll always be able to
>> come up with something harmonious. It's also possible the result, while
>> coherent and workable, is too unwieldy. But there is reasonable merit in
>> *trying* to make the platform consistent when/if we can, not just CSS
>> consistent with itself. I do not think we do authors any favor when we
>> ignore the rest of the platform.
>My point is, CSS has a syntax for positioning rectangles within rectangles
>*since Level 1*. Choosing consistency with SVG's way of positioning
>rectangles *over and instead of* consistency with CSS's way of positioning
>rectangles *in CSS* makes no sense whatsoever.

I feel like I'm beating the proverbial dead horse here, but my proposal is
not selecting SVG *instead of* CSS. I agree that we should support CSS
conventions. I just want to do both.


Received on Wednesday, 30 October 2013 01:17:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:16 UTC