- From: Stu Cox <stuart.cox@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 09:44:02 +0000
- To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Cc: Lea Verou <lea@w3.org>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Received on Monday, 25 March 2013 09:45:00 UTC
If `border-radius` and `border-corner-shape` could both be specified as part of a shorthand property, the developer could decide how it should fall back; e.g.: /* Falls back to rounded corners */ .module { border-corner-shape: scoop; border-radius: 50%; } /* Falls back to a rectangle */ .module { border-corner: scoop 50%; } I appreciate the syntax isn't ideal... if only `border-radius` had been named `border-corner-radius`! Stu Cox @stucoxmedia On 24 March 2013 22:42, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 24, 2013, at 3:04 PM, Lea Verou <lea@w3.org> wrote: > > > True, but wouldn’t a rectangle be an even worse fallback? > > Maybe, maybe not. Maybe the author could have a border-radius with some > other measurement as fallback. I think ideally (in terms of results), > border-image would be more useful as a fallback. But I'm not sure how that > would happen. >
Received on Monday, 25 March 2013 09:45:00 UTC