- From: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>
- Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 16:49:49 -0800
- To: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On 12/5/13, 4:01 PM, "Sylvain Galineau" <galineau@adobe.com> wrote: >6.1 The 'shape-outside' Property [3] > >Bikeshed: I am unsure about 'auto' being the best name for 'using the >margin-box as normal', in part because one can also specify >shape-outside: margin-box and the difference is not very obvious at first >(in the latter case, the outer margin box boundary is affected by >border-radius). Would 'none' be better? The difference between the default margin box behavior (squared-off corners always) and the margin-box behavior (rounded corners when border-radius says so) is orthogonal to the name we pick for the no shape value. I need to go through the draft and clarify the difference between margin box and margin-box. It’s really too bad the <box> values don’t have a better name to denote they take the rounded corner edges into account. Could we actually change to something like margin-edge and deprecate the *-box values? I notice that clip-path uses none to mean no shape. I think auto was initially used in Exclusions because we had both shape-inside and shape-outside, and shape-outside applied to floats and exclusions. The no shape scenarios for all of these had slightly different behavior. Now that we’ve changed shape-inside:auto to not have a special meaning I’m not against changing auto to none. But I’m not entirely convinced none is significantly better. So it’s either: The meaning of shape-outside:auto is that the float area (or exclusion area) uses its default behavior. It’s still a shape, it’s just that the shape is determined by the float or exclusion behavior before shape-outside was defined. Or The meaning of shape-outside:none is that the float area (or exclusion area) is not modified by an explicit shape. Opinions? Alan
Received on Friday, 6 December 2013 00:50:17 UTC