Re: [css-shapes] Positioning <basic-shapes> summary, v2

On 10/29/13 5:51 PM, "fantasai" <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:

>On 10/29/2013 01:50 PM, Alan Stearns wrote:
>> [...]
>
>I think that was a pretty good summary of the issue. :)
>
>> An additional drawback that applies somewhat to both approaches is that
>>we
>> haven't yet defined <new-position> or exactly what the CSS-style
>>rectangle
>> syntax should be. So I expect there will be some rounds of bikeshedding
>>on
>> these topics. For A, I believe that results in the shape() function
>>moving
>> to the next module level. For B, I believe that results in holding up
>>the
>> current level until we reach agreement on these two items.
>
>While I'm sympathetic to the scheduling concerns, I think it's more
>responsible for us to hold up the specs for an extra month or two
>to resolve these issues to provide the best feature design for authors,
>than to increase the amount of syntactic options and backwards-
>compatibility concerns they have to juggle just because we wanted to
>ship Masking a few weeks earlier.

I agree, but that's why I listed this one last. The more important thing
is whether we accommodate both SVG and CSS syntax and percentage
interpretation at the cost of some duplication, or if we decide to only
include CSS syntax.

Thanks,

Alan

Received on Wednesday, 30 October 2013 01:11:16 UTC