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, AlanReceived on Tuesday, 27 November 2012 22:00:24 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 23 January 2023 02:14:22 UTC