Re: [css3-background] should radii be capped?

From: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 9:30 AM, François REMY<fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr> 
> wrote:
>> From: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
>>>
>>> Here's the behavior I'm looking for (view in any recent Safari or
>>> Chrome): http://www.xanthir.com/etc/stretchy-corners.html
>>>
>>> Magic behavior switching *will* be confusing, whether it's based on
>>> the presence of the / or the number of values or anything else.  When
>>> I omit values I expect it to act *exactly* as if I had specified them
>>> according to normal rules.
>>
>> Would a keyword be a good solution at your eyes ?
>>
>
> Did you mean this to be off-list?

Not particulary. Pressed the Reply button instead of Reply all. Fixed.

> Anyway, what would this keyword *do*?  I don't want to switch between
> capped and uncapped radiuses, like Hakon is talking about.  That's a
> red herring.  I want percentage-based radiuses that work as expected,
> rather than the odd way that FF currently has them working.  I don't
> think that a keyword should be necessary to switch between my expected
> behavior and FF's current behavior, either - from my pov FF's behavior
> is just plain wacky, and not actually useful to me as a designer.

As you noted, they are ugly artifacts when the the border-radius is too 
small
on a part, and great on the other part. A designer may want a square radius
as it's more beautiful.

You may argue that the problems may be solved using antialiasing, but even
with that, you will continue to notice problems.

Personnaly, I would love to have a way to have the 100% unit to have the 
same
value as min(width, height). It can help me to make a circle radius border 
that
grows as the box I use grows.

Imagine the case of a [25% * 2000px] box that would be the main content of
my page. If I want the rounded border to be in function of the width of the 
page,
I must use a % unit. But if the result DIV is 250px * 2000px, your behaviour 
will
result into a not so beautiful radius. The solution used by FireFox would 
produce
a better result, to my opinion.

Try it with a 1% border radius. Your solution would create a 3*20px border 
radius
while the FireFox solution produces what I intended : a 3*3px border radius.

Would it be so bad having a (facultative) keyword that specify whether to 
use one
or the other solution to compute the % unit ?

Received on Thursday, 23 July 2009 14:56:12 UTC