Re: [css-shapes] Functional Notation

On 10/2/13 9:20 AM, "fantasai" <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:

>On 10/01/2013 08:15 PM, Alan Stearns wrote:
>
>> And what do you mean by handling rectangle() similarly? I'd really like
>>to
>> see some sample declarations.
>
>rectangle( <size> [ at <position> ]? )
>
>inset-rectangle( <offset>{1,4} ) /* handle like margin shorthand */

I was going to have a summary email (we appear to agree on the current
polygon syntax and removing commas in the others, the remainder is between
the current spec and a new gradient-style syntax)

But as I was describing how gradient-style syntax would work with
rectangles (which is a new thing, so we'll need to run it through the
grinder) I came across the <position> variant that uses four arguments.
The rectangle functions need to include corner radii as well, so it would
be ambiguous whether rectangle() with six arguments was describing the
complicated <position> or adding radii. And it would be ambiguous in
inset-rectangle() whether the arguments referred to offsets or radii.

So these two functions would look more like:

rectangle( <size>? [ at <position> ]? [ radii <radius>{1,2} ]? )

inset-rectangle( <offset>{1,4} [ radii <radius>{1,2} ]? )

(where <radius> is one of those common <length> | <percentage> thingies)

This seems to be getting a bit keyword-heavy. While I see the appeal of
using the gradient syntax for circle(), I'm not sure it cleanly extends to
rectangle()

Thanks,

Alan

Received on Wednesday, 2 October 2013 18:48:40 UTC