- From: Amelia Bellamy-Royds via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 18:43:35 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> I would support that as long as the spec defines the location of the point. My suggestion to use `border-radius` rules was specifically the calculation for scaling down all the measurements proportionally (I've updated the link above to go to the [precise section](https://drafts.csswg.org/css-backgrounds-3/#corner-overlap)): For inset rectangles, the calculation would be simpler,* because you're not worried about maintaining the aspect ratio of a corner curve: - if (_inset-left_ + _inset-right_) > _width_, multiply both horizontal insets by (_width_/(_inset-left_ + _inset-right_)) - if (_inset-top_ + _inset-bottom_) > _height_, multiply both vertical insets by (_height_/(_inset-top_ + _inset-bottom_)) That means that if the insets on opposite sides are equal, the collapsed point/line would be in the exact middle of the reference box. If one inset is 9 times the opposite inset, the point would be 1/10th of the distance across. > Where should it be in a case like `inset(100% 100% 50% 50%)`? It would be at the same point as `inset(66.67% 66.67% 33.33% 33.33%)`, with all the insets being scaled down equally to fit in the 100% width/height available. \* _Unless_ you wanted to also scale down the border-radius curves proportionally, in which case things could get complicated. But if I'm reading the [function definition](https://drafts.csswg.org/css-shapes/#funcdef-inset) correctly, the border radiuses apply _after_ the insetting happens (e.g., a border-radius of 10% would be 10% of the inset shape, not the original box), so it's probably best to keep that as a separate step, with its own adjustments. -- GitHub Notification of comment by AmeliaBR Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2375#issuecomment-404271223 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 11 July 2018 18:43:39 UTC