Re: [css-shapes] <basic-shapes> etc. summary 3

On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 5:36 PM, Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com> wrote:
> On 11/11/13 9:20 AM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 4:58 PM, Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/10/13 3:07 PM, "Alan Stearns" <stearns@adobe.com> wrote:
>>>>We change circle() and ellipse() to use radial gradient syntax:
>>>>
>>>>circle() = circle( [<size>] [at <position>] )
>>>>ellipse() = ellipse( [<size>] [at <position>] )
>>>
>>> Now that I'm starting to make these changes, I'm noticing that <size> as
>>> defined by radial gradients does not allow percentages for circle radii,
>>> and the corner keywords there are more suited for gradients than shapes
>>> (farthest and closest corner radii will not tend to produce useful
>>>circles
>>> for shape-outside or clip-path).
>>>
>>> I think I'd like to amend this to:
>>>
>>> circle() = circle( [<shape-radius>] [at <position>] )
>>> ellipse() = ellipse( [<shape-radius>{2}] [at <position>] )
>>>
>>>
>>> Where <shape-radius> keeps the same width/height/cover/contain keywords
>>>as
>>> the current shapes draft, and we keep the same percentage circle radius
>>> definition in the draft.
>>
>>Alternately, we could just define <percentage> circle radius for
>>radial gradients the same way, and add the 'width' and 'height'
>>keywords.
>
> Actually, I'm not sure that width and height are that useful for basic
> shapes - when you use them as radii you get shapes that are too large to
> be used for shape-outside or clip-path.
>
>>
>>circle()'s use of "cover" isn't correct - it's different from the
>>definition of "cover" in every other instance of the term in CSS, or
>>any reasonable English definition, as it doesn't "cover" anything.
>>However, I'm not sure of what a better keyword would be.
>
> Ditto for cover - I'm not seeing the use case.

Right, "cover" isn't useful at all.

>>For that matter, its definition of "contain" is different from every
>>other instance, too - it only matches the normal meaning if the circle
>>is centered.  Any other time, the circle won't actually be contained
>>in the shape.
>
> This is probably better covered by the 'closest-side' keyword. So perhaps
> we should use closest-side and farthest-side, and default to closest-side
> for circles.
>
> I'd like to have default values for ellipse() radii that results in a
> 'contain' situation, but I'm not sure what those defaults would be. 50%
> 50% works for a centered ellipse, but once the position strays from the
> center I'm not sure what to do.

Why not just use "contain"?

~TJ

Received on Monday, 11 November 2013 02:37:48 UTC