- From: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>
- Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 10:54:18 -0700
- To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
- CC: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
On 10/9/13 11:51 AM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: >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. Fantasai, Are you OK with what Tab and I have worked out? Thanks, Alan
Received on Tuesday, 15 October 2013 17:54:47 UTC