- From: Noam Rosenthal via GitHub <noreply@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2025 07:49:56 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> One thing to note is that "contour", while more accurate, is a word that is less friendly to non native speakers compared to "shape". > > More substantively: > > * I like the core idea, I think it makes a lot of sense. There are also a lot of use cases around variable strokes along a path, I wonder if it can cover them (not necessarily now). > * It seems the two paths case is basically a Porter-Duff operator and should ideally be handled by a new shape function that takes `<shape>` args? `compound()`? It's not porter-duff... there's no alpha channel involved. It's more like an even-odd fill. `border-shape` is already meant to support this, I've proposed to make that syntax clearer [here](https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/11662#issuecomment-2945023995) ``` border-shape: box | stroke <<basic-shape>> | between <<basic-shape>> and <<basic-shape> ``` > * I'm finding the second and third examples pretty hard to read TBH (but perhaps the complexity is inherent in the use cases) Perhaps with that syntax in the above link we don't need an additional shorthand that tries to cover everything about borders? It gets a bit DSL-ish, and perhaps individual properties are more readable. -- GitHub Notification of comment by noamr Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/11679#issuecomment-2948399725 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Friday, 6 June 2025 07:49:57 UTC