W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-archive@w3.org > July 2018

Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-shapes-1] Degenerate polygons with positive shape-margin

From: CSS Meeting Bot via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2018 16:40:51 +0000
To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-407819143-1532536850-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
The Working Group just discussed `Degenerate polygons with positive shape-margin`, and agreed to the following:

* `RESOLVED: Accept the changes as stated in the issue`

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;dael> Topic: Degenerate polygons with positive shape-margin<br>
&lt;dael> github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2375<br>
&lt;dael> TabAtkins: The current shape spec has test about degenerate polygons. It makes them not create a shape, text can pierce through.<br>
&lt;dael> TabAtkins: It doesn't have a special case for a positive shape margin where actual exclusion area is non-0. We should ammend the spec so things with positive shape margin are treated as having a postive area<br>
&lt;bradk> btw<br>
&lt;dael> TabAtkins: Issue goes further that the ruling about Degenerate polygons is wrong and we should remove. SVG has similar issue where if trying to stroke a path and size of box for stroking is determined by fill rectangle. Can be 0 area and triggers special cases where it isn't stroked and causes strange cases.<br>
&lt;dael> TabAtkins: Get similar issues where if animating polygon and if all points lin up you temp get entire layout to shift as it no longer excludes. Issue argues we remove special casing<br>
&lt;dael> TabAtkins: I looked at our code with iank_ and he supports it b/c it's removing special case<br>
&lt;dael> TabAtkins: Only complication is you can have negative margins and it can shrink spacing to 0. With degenrate rule you didn't have to worry about where 0 is. AmeliaBR suggestion sounds reasonable at first glance to solve. It's relatively corner case.<br>
&lt;dael> TabAtkins: Larger is should 0 area be an exlucsion<br>
&lt;dael> TabAtkins: Chrome supports the change<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen: Other prospective?<br>
&lt;myles> what is inverted space<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: I support what's discussed in issue. q: you can have polygons with inverted areas, not just a line but they're crossing and inverted area inside. If you have a positive shape margin in that case does it have to overcome the inverted space or do we define inverted space to uninvert<br>
&lt;myles> winding order?<br>
&lt;dael> TabAtkins: Good q, don't have best answer. Related to whe you over-deflate. Shoudl a really big neg margin cause positive shape. Should they<br>
&lt;tantek> there's a similar question / issue with negative outlines<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: They don't. We won't change that.<br>
&lt;dael> TabAtkins: Why?<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: Right now if you have a float with neg margin on both sides that won't turn into a positive shape<br>
&lt;dael> TabAtkins: It's a shape-maargin not a normal one.<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: shape-margin is positive only?<br>
&lt;dael> TabAtkins: Nope<br>
&lt;dael> fantasai: I still think same principle should apply. Why can't you create  a rectangle with the same behavior as a float.<br>
&lt;dael> TabAtkins: There's a lot of difference with shape and shape-margin so I don't know yet. I'm happy to figure it out as we go along. DOn't think we need to resolve to resolve this issue<br>
&lt;tantek> regarding what astearns said about inverted areas, here is another way we end up with inverted areas (and incompat) https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2892<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: Clarification: It sounded like polygons with jsut lines and a positive shape margin will add their shape to exclusion area. Also polygons that are just lines will include line edge even w/o margins<br>
&lt;dael> TabAtkins: Correct<br>
&lt;dael> TabAtkins: There's a special case in our shape code and it skips by it currently. We just remove that check.<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: I propse we take what's in the issue, put in spec, and attempt to spec inverted areas and bring to group<br>
&lt;dael> iank_: One other thing, I filed an issue, but there will be bugs if we do just a paragraph. When we do this change I'd prefer we define how a line-box intrudes into a float with a shape outside and write out algo.<br>
&lt;dael> iank_: Otherwise someone will do something slightly different and we get compat bugs<br>
&lt;dael> iank_: It's issue [looking]<br>
&lt;dael> iank_: #2949<br>
&lt;dael> iank_: I looked at Moz code and they have same concept in their code<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: Thanks<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen: Going back to this issue<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen: Can we take the resolution proposed by TabAtkins?<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: I'm fine<br>
&lt;dael> TabAtkins: proposal: we take what's in the issue, put in spec, and attempt to spec inverted areas and bring to group<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen: Objections?<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: Agree with issue and bring it into the spec to match<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen: Accept the changes as stated in the issue. Objections?<br>
&lt;dael> RESOLVED: Accept the changes as stated in the issue<br>
</details>


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2375#issuecomment-407819143 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 25 July 2018 16:40:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 19 September 2019 01:18:59 UTC