- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 15:21:40 -0500
- To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Cc: Zack Weinberg <zweinberg@mozilla.com>, W3C Emailing list for WWW Style <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 1:43 PM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote: > On Wednesday 2009-10-14 11:30 -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote: >> If this particular argument was already considered and rejected, I >> would appreciate a pointer to the discussion. > > Most recently at last week's teleconference: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009Oct/0042.html > but also a number of times before that. The highlights of that discussion were that, when you want a quarter-circle corner, it's nearly always sufficient to just specify it with a length. The major case where you really do want a % quarter-circle corner is to make "lozenges" (typically used for buttons, where the sides end in a half-circle), and for those you can just set a very large length instead - the length scaling will reduce it appropriately and keep things correctly proportioned. On the other hand, the major use-case for per-side %s is to create circles/ovals, and that *can't* be done at all if % always refers to width. That all said, Bert, Elika, and I discussed it a bit later that day in the #css irc, and thought that perhaps a keyword would suffice to switch between the two behaviors. ~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 14 October 2009 20:22:30 UTC