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

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?

>
>> 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.

(just FYI) You can just specify the shape once with shape-outside - by
default shape-inside takes on the computed value of shape-outside.

Thanks,

Alan