- From: Noam Rosenthal via GitHub <noreply@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2025 17:46:38 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> @noamr What @svgeesus said. Wrt css-borders-4, the FPWD is "we are working on this idea, it is roughly scoped out like this, and there's general agreement on pursuing this direction (subject to potentially significant changes as we work through feedback)". It's not "we're done designing and ready to ship" -- that's what CR is for. So `border-shape` is totally fine for FPWD. > > The hesitation on `shape-inside`/`shape-padding` is because we don't have agreement on fundamental aspects of how it should work (like with automatic sizes). Gotcha, thanks! So my proposal atm would be to port shape() to css-shapes-1 and publish that. -- GitHub Notification of comment by noamr Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/6900#issuecomment-2936478083 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Tuesday, 3 June 2025 17:46:39 UTC