- From: Stu Cox <stuart.cox@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 09:44:47 +0000
- To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Cc: Lea Verou <lea@w3.org>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAJ-2Ov6kWk=fhpgimhegXNu6+6xh0bkN0FduPdhyPGwpaovO5A@mail.gmail.com>
@Brad - you could use @supports to fall back to a border-image: @supports (border-corner-shape:scoop) { .module { border-corner-shape: scoop; border-radius: 50%; } } @supports not (border-corner-shape:scoop) { .module { border-image: <fallback_values>; } } Stu Cox @stucoxmedia On 25 March 2013 09:44, Stu Cox <stuart.cox@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 09:45:50 UTC