W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > November 2012

Re: [css3-exclusions] Shapes depend on which box?

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 13:51:16 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDDycBO251XKZ18yyyGAcPFw5TGMvg2YV5TkWPCp=k+MYw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>
Cc: www-style <www-style@w3.org>
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"?

> As for shape-outside, the current definition says that a 100% width and
> height rectangle for shape-outside on a float would shrink the float area
> from the margin box to the border box. Making the change would further
> shrink the float area to the content box, which isn't any less confusing
> than before. I'm assuming a single, consistent definition of how lengths
> and percentages work with shapes is preferable to having separate
> definitions for shape-inside and shape-outside (particularly when you're
> using the same shape for both).

Yes, consistency is probably best, so you can easily just give the
same values to both.

Received on Tuesday, 27 November 2012 21:52:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 23 January 2023 02:14:22 UTC