- From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 23:53:38 -0700
- To: Joel Rea <joel@mmcc.com>
- Cc: Jerome Leclanche <adys.wh@gmail.com>, Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>, "<www-style@w3.org>" <www-style@w3.org>, Francois REMY <fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
On Aug 3, 2011, at 8:29 PM, "Joel Rea" <joel@mmcc.com> wrote: > First off, it¡¯s ¡°border-radius-SHAPE,¡± not ¡°border-radius-STYLE.¡± The latter would have an entirely different purpose, more in keeping with what ¡°border-style¡± does (¡°solid¡±, ¡°double¡±, ¡°dashed¡±, ¡°dotted¡±, ¡°inset¡±, ¡°outset¡±, ¡°groove¡±, ¡°ridge¡±, etc., applied individually or to all four corner portions as specified in the relevant ¡°border-radius¡± and shaped by ¡°border-radius-shape¡±). Having separate border-styles for the corners does not sound very useful to me. > Secondly, using a negative value has a different purpose. What is it? > ¡°border-radius-shape: concave¡± is a specific border rounding shape. What you described for 'border-radius-shape: concave' sounds like what negative values on border-radius should do (given the existing shape for positive values). A transition from positive to negative could even be animated smoothly.
Received on Thursday, 4 August 2011 06:54:10 UTC