- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 13:18:04 -0700
- To: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>
- CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On 10/16/2013 12:46 PM, Alan Stearns wrote: > On 10/16/13 11:30 AM, "fantasai" <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote: > >> Actually, an interesting related question is, how do you position an >> <image>? We can shift circles around very powerfully if they're defined >> inline, but there is no way to position a circle that's been derived >>from an image. > > That's correct. We could extend this in future levels. Or we may find that > getting the shape from a rendered background (with all of the positioning > that allows) is sufficient. I don't think this is required for level 1, > and I'd rather get some feedback from people using level 1 > shape-from-image to determine what is required. Then where is the shape positioned if it is not the same size as the element? (Like for masking, I think it should be centered by default, fwiw.) >> While we're on it, how is that image sized? It's not defined. > >>From section 4.0: > > Sizing the shape from an image follows the Concrete Object Size Resolution > section from [CSS3-IMAGES]. Yes, but with what default object size? >> And to tie that back to the main thread... if we have the ability to >> position an <image>, how does it interact if a <basic-shape> is given >> instead? > > I'm not sure I follow what you're asking here. Are you thinking ahead to a > shape-positioning property (or set of properties)? Yeah, thinking, if we have those properties, what would be the impact on positioning <basic-shape>s. ~fantasai
Received on Wednesday, 16 October 2013 20:18:32 UTC