Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-borders-4]: `border-shape` order of shapes in the two-shape variant (#13308)

The CSS Working Group just discussed ``[css-borders-4]: `border-shape` order of shapes in the two-shape variant``, and agreed to the following:

* `RESOLVED: Close no change, don't mind the inconsistency with listified borders`

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;emilio> noamr: `border-shape` has two variants, one-shape (stroke) and two-shape (filled)<br>
&lt;emilio> ... inner one is the overflow-clip<br>
&lt;emilio> ... currently order is outer then inner<br>
&lt;astearns> q+<br>
&lt;emilio> ... are we going with this or is it confusing?<br>
&lt;emilio> ... raised because of the multiple-borders discussion<br>
&lt;astearns> q-<br>
&lt;emilio> ... after running polls I think they came inconclussive<br>
&lt;emilio> ... my current suggestion is close no change (keep outer then inner)<br>
&lt;emilio> ... with future option to make border-shape a shorthand that has two values<br>
&lt;emilio> q+<br>
&lt;astearns> border list issue: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/13044<br>
&lt;astearns> ack emilio<br>
&lt;smfr> q+<br>
&lt;emilio> emilio: were the polls about border-width unconclusive? or only the border-shape<br>
&lt;astearns> ack smfr<br>
&lt;emilio> noamr: border-shape were unconclusive, border-width were more conclusive towards inside-out<br>
&lt;emilio> emilio: any reason not to be consistent if border-shape is 50/50?<br>
&lt;emilio> smfr: my thinking about why border-shape was outside-in?<br>
&lt;emilio> ... I don't think it of outside-in<br>
&lt;emilio> ... the first one is the fundamental shape of the element<br>
&lt;astearns> q+<br>
&lt;emilio> ... the second one is an embellishment<br>
&lt;noamr> +1<br>
&lt;emilio> ... if you only supply one it's the outer one<br>
&lt;fantasai> +1<br>
&lt;emilio> ... makes more sense to me<br>
&lt;astearns> ack astearns<br>
&lt;emilio> astearns: if that was natural wouldn't it be more natural for the borders thing?<br>
&lt;emilio> smfr: don't think so, extra ones pile outside because they're extra for me<br>
&lt;emilio> q+<br>
&lt;astearns> ack emilio<br>
&lt;noamr> Scribe+<br>
&lt;emilio> astearns: I think it'd be slightly nicer if they were consistent but I don't worry too much about this<br>
&lt;lwarlow> I think inconsistent is fine fwiw, these will be learned orders anyway. The docs will make it clear.<br>
&lt;noamr> emilio: I buy the argument from Simon. it will be good for the spec to speak about it in those terms<br>
&lt;noamr> emilio: rather than inner/outer<br>
&lt;fantasai> Yeah, I'm not convinced about a shorthand making sense here.<br>
&lt;noamr> emilio: having an inner/embelishment without an outer probably doesn't make sense so probably also not a shorthand<br>
&lt;emilio> PROPOSED: Close no change, don't mind the inconsistency with listified borders<br>
&lt;lea> (Agree with the resolution)<br>
&lt;emilio> RESOLVED: Close no change, don't mind the inconsistency with listified borders<br>
</details>


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/13308#issuecomment-3922319623 using your GitHub account


-- 
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config

Received on Wednesday, 18 February 2026 17:59:05 UTC