W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > June 2013

Re: [css-shapes] "box" value for shape-inside

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 07:25:19 +0200
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDDWr218zXKe7RPiKkYxuWKfRf_t1=P=fCZsd6Lc_x3PGQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>
Cc: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 11:38 PM, Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com> wrote:
> On 6/14/13 1:06 PM, "Brad Kemper" <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote:
>>How about 'attr(src)' instead of a keyword? Then one could reference
>>other attributes too, such as 'data-foo', and the feature would be more
>>source language agnostic (not just HTML's 'src').
> You should be able to use attr(whatever) as well. I'm thinking the keyword
> would be more about making sure the shape you get from the image file
> lines up with the displayed image. You can do all sorts of things with
> positioning and sizing an image within a content area. If the alpha shape
> doesn't also get those positioning and sizing steps, it won't be aligned
> with the displayed image.
> I don't think that it makes sense to have a shape version of everything
> you can do to an image (shape-object-fit:contain?). I was thinking the
> 'image' keyword would be a way of saying, "Do everything necessary to line
> up the alpha shape with the displayed image."
> And if you don't want or need the shape to match the displayed image (or
> you want to use a different image entirely for the shape) you could use
> the URL or attr(src).

Nitpick: attr(src url).  Otherwise you've got a <string> rather than a
<url> value.

I agree with this reasoning.

Received on Saturday, 15 June 2013 05:26:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:31 UTC