- From: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>
- Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 16:28:13 -0800
- To: www-style <www-style@w3.org>
On 11/27/12 2:35 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: >On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 1:59 PM, Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com> wrote: >> On 11/27/12 1:51 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: >>>On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com> wrote: >>>> The current draft of the spec says that the coordinate system and >>>>resolved >>>> percentages for declared shapes uses the border box of the element. I >>>>am >>>> thinking it might make more sense to use the content box of the >>>>element. >>>> As it stands, specifying a 100% width and height rectangle to >>>>shape-inside >>>> can change how its inline content is laid out (depending on the border >>>>and >>>> padding). If we change the coordinate system and percentages to use >>>>the >>>> content box, then a 100% width and height rectangle for shape-inside >>>> changes nothing, and modifications to percentages are relative to what >>>> you'd get without defining a shape-inside. >>> >>>Your rectangle argument is convincing. This sounds fine to me. >>> >>>However, people might actually want border-box sizing. Have you given >>>though to adding an optional <box> value to the properties, defaulting >>>to "content-box"? >> >> Hmm - what if we used the value of box-sizing? > >That makes sense to me. Then we can punt on manual control until it's >proven we need it. I have made this change. Thanks, Alan
Received on Saturday, 1 December 2012 00:28:43 UTC