- From: Tab Atkins Jr. via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 02 Apr 2023 18:31:59 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> One alternative syntax could be shape: custom(path) where the syntax path is more akin to SVG command-like syntax. Note the [`shape()` function already in Shapes 2](https://drafts.csswg.org/css-shapes-2/#shape-function). ----- This is *far* larger of an issue than your comment indicates. The syntax is essentially irrelevant at this point; the *meaning* of an element being a 3d shape is the far more important aspect to define. How does the element display its contents? How does it lay out in its parent? How does this interact with transforms? How does it interact with every existing API that expects an element to be a 2d surface? This would be a massive change, with tons of details to work out, which would need to be solved before we even got remotely near the problem of how to *define* the shape in 3d. -- GitHub Notification of comment by tabatkins Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/8652#issuecomment-1493410115 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Sunday, 2 April 2023 18:32:03 UTC