- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 11:51:45 -0700
- To: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>
- Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 11:33 AM, Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com> wrote: > Given the percentage issue, my recommendation is to go with the first > proposal, which allows us to get both CSS and SVG compatibility. We can > either define shape() in level 2, or allow shape() with circles and > ellipses in level 1 and extend the shape() keywords to rectangle and > possibly others in level 2. Given that we're currently discussing how to > amend the <position> value, it may make the most sense to put off all of > shape() to level 2. I agree with Alan. Lacking even an idea for a proposal for switching the percentage behavior of <position>, I don't want to force us into using <position> and require people to write SVG just to get a shape positioned with its left edge at 50%. I'm happy to use shape() for this in the future, and I can accept putting it in level 2. ~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 9 October 2013 18:52:34 UTC