- From: Bear Travis <betravis@adobe.com>
- Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 12:17:09 -0700
- To: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
What would the effect be on CSS Exclusions? [1] It seems like the css for specifying a shape-inside [2] would change from { shape-inside: polygon(evenOdd, 0 0, 10px 0, 5px 10px 0 0); } To { shape-inside: polygon(0 0, 10px 0, 5px 10px, 0 0); fill-rule: evenOdd; } Is this correct? -Bear [1] http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-exclusions/ [2] http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-exclusions/#shape-inside-property On 8/28/12 11:29 AM, "Dirk Schulze" <dschulze@adobe.com> wrote: > >On Aug 28, 2012, at 8:50 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 6:45 AM, Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com> >>wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I think the keywords for <fill-rule> should be removed from the syntax >>>of 'polygon()'[1]. I think the shapes on the exclusion spec can be >>>reused in other contexts as well. One example is <shape> as shorthand >>>for 'clip-path' in the CSS Masking[2] spec. But for 'clip-path' we >>>already have the 'clip-rule' property with the values 'nonzero' and >>>'evenodd' [3]. >>> >>> I would suggest using the 'fill-rule' property from SVG [4] to specify >>>the fill rule on 'polygon()'. This property is already implemented by >>>all browsers anyway. >> >> I don't see how that works, if shape functions are going to be usable >> in multiple properties. >We have clip-rule and fill-rule. So where is the problem? > >Greetings, >Dirk >> >> ~TJ > >
Received on Tuesday, 28 August 2012 20:32:24 UTC