Re: [css3-exclusions] remove <fill-rule> from "polygon()" syntax

On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 5:44 PM, Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com> wrote:

>
> On Aug 28, 2012, at 5:09 PM, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In SVG, fill-rule [1] and clip-rule[2] are inherited so they can be set
> on a <g> element and affect the paths of the children.
> >
> > 1: http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG/painting.html#FillProperties
> > 2: http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG/masking.html#EstablishingANewClippingPath
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 3:54 PM, Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Aug 28, 2012, at 3:51 PM, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I think fill/clip-rule should stay with the marking operator in CSS.
> > > It makes much more sense to keep them there than making them part of
> the graphics state and it will make the implementation much easier.
> > > (I know this is different from SVG.)
> > I am not sure what you mean. Can you clarify more please?
> >
> > In SVG, fill-rule [1] and clip-rule[2] are inherited so they can be set
> on a <g> element and affect the paths of the children.
> >
> > It would be better if these rules are not inherited and just specified
> per fill/stroke/clip. Not only would it save you from having to keep them
> in the state, it would also help if you move paths around since you don't
> have to remember their inherited winding. I've never seen a case where you
> want to use the same path with different fill rules.
> >
> Like you noted, they are already defined in SVG 1.1.
>
> Also 'inherit' is one of the default keywords that apply to every CSS
> property and the default value is not 'inherit' but 'nonzero'. Therefore
> you need to specify the 'fill-rule'/'clip-rule' on the path itself to
> 'inherit'. If you do that, I assume you are aware that it inherits the
> value from the parent :).


 True, but do you want this in CSS? Have you ever seen someone use this?
Better to keep the winding rule with the drawing operator.


> >
> > 1: http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG/painting.html#FillProperties
> > 2: http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG/masking.html#EstablishingANewClippingPath
> >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Aug 28, 2012, at 1:55 PM, Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > (I hope I fixed the quoting correctly)
> > > >
> > > > On 8/28/12 12:17 PM, "Bear Travis" <betravis@adobe.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> 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?
> > > >>
> > > >> 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
> > > >
> > > > Bear,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I believe that's what Dirk is asking for. But it sounds to me like it
> > > > would need to be an additional property per
> > > > property-that-accepted-shape-syntax (fill-rule, clip-rule - what
> about
> > > > shape-inside-rule and shape-outside-rule?). And these new properties
> would
> > > > only apply if the polygon syntax was used. I think it might be
> better kept
> > > > as a parameter in the polygon function.
> > > >
> > > Yes, you might be right.
> > >
> > > Basic shapes could be a good fit for 'clip-path'. For 'clip-path' we
> have the 'clip-rule' property which sets the fill-rule. The keyword for the
> fill-rule on 'polygon()' is optional but nonzero by default. I would like
> to use the value of the 'clip-rule' property if no keyword was set on
> 'polygon()'. Is it possible that CSS Exclusions also let other
> specifications and properties define the clip rule then? E.g.
> > >
> > > clip-rule: evenodd;
> > > clip-path: polygon(25% 25%, 50% 50%, 75% 25%);
> > >
> > > The clip rule would be evenodd for the polygon(), since 'clip-rule'
> property defines it.
> > >
> > > If the rule was set on the polygon(), it overrides any other property
> that aims to set the fill rule.
> > >
> > > Does that sound reasonable for you?
> > >
> > > Greetings,
> > > Dirk
> > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > Alan
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>