W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > October 2013

Re: [css-shapes] how to position <basic-shape>s

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 14:43:05 -0700
Message-ID: <525F0869.3030602@inkedblade.net>
To: www-style@w3.org
On 10/16/2013 01:53 PM, Alan Stearns wrote:
> On 10/16/13 1:46 PM, "fantasai" <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:
>
>> On 10/09/2013 11:33 AM, Alan Stearns wrote:
>>>
>>> And this would introduce a dissimilarity between how percentages are
>>> handled on x,y arguments in rectangle() versus how they are handled
>>> in polygon()
>>
>> Well, polygon() is a series of points, whereas rectangle() is a size
>> and a position. So I don't this concern is valid. If you're looking
>> for a rectangle function that works like polygon(), then you want
>> rect(): it is two pairs of coordinates defining a rectangle, just
>> as polygon() is multiple pairs of coordinates defining a polygon.
>>
>> Does that make sense?
>
> A while back you had brought up the possibility of the first x,y
> coordinate in polygon specifying a <position> that the rest of the x,y
> points were relative to. I was assuming that would be the start of a
> CSS-style shape(polygon ...) function, and that the use of <position>
> there could be made consistent with a CSS-style shape(rectangle ...)
> function.

No, I was thinking to just add more arguments to the first "global setup"
argument in polygon(), before the list of points, kindof like gradients
have all their parameters in the inital "global setup" argument, followed
by a list of colors.

I'm not sure yet what those arguments would be, but I'm happy to leave
that to another level. There is space for them currently, so I'm not
concerned.

But anyway, my point was, rect() is the analog of polygon(), not
rectangle(). :)

~fantasai
Received on Wednesday, 16 October 2013 21:43:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:51:03 UTC