- From: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>
- Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 17:35:00 -0700
- To: François REMY <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On 7/11/13 1:32 PM, "François REMY" <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com> wrote: > >>>PS2: Shouldn't "shape-margin" and "shape-image-threshould" be correctly >>>namespaced as "shape-outside-margin" and >>>"shape-outside-image-threshould"? >> >> The margin only applies to shape-outside, so there's no need for >> inside/outside duplication. The image-threshold might need to be split, >>if >> there are use cases for an element having both a shape-inside and a >> shape-outside, and wanting to use different thresholds for each. My >> thought is that it is much more likely that a single threshold would be >> used with different shape-margin and shape-padding. > >It's not only a question of disambiguation but a way to define proper >shorthands like: 'shape-outside: image 0.5;' instead of using two >declarations. This also mean a 'shape-outside' declaration would reset >all options, similarly to how 'background: url(...)' also resets >'background-size' as opposed to 'background-image' (aka align with css >conventions). I had not considered making shape-outside a shorthand. I'm not sure it's worth the naming gyrations that would be necessary - wouldn't there need to be a longhand for what shape-outside sets now? Would we need to call it shape-outside-shape? I prefer the shorter shape-margin than the longer shape-outside-margin, and I wouldn't be comfortable making changes to accommodate a possible shorthand that until now no one's asked for. Thanks, Alan
Received on Friday, 12 July 2013 00:36:10 UTC