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

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

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 10:30:19 -0700
Message-ID: <5271422B.3040309@inkedblade.net>
To: www-style@w3.org
On 10/30/2013 10:08 AM, Chris Lilley wrote:
>> One complication is that percentage values for SVG-style x and y are
>> interpreted differently than percentage values in the corresponding
>> components of the <new-position> syntax.
> That argues for keeping what we have so that people (who are
> increasingly familiar with SVG) can build on their knowledge there
> rather than having to remember that in CSS, shapes behave sort of
> differently sometimes.

Well there's several issues here:

   1. Syntax of the functional notation's internals
        a. Use 4 consecutive lengths (x y w h)
        b. Use radial-gradient syntax (w h at x y)

   2. Interpretation of percentages for rectangles
        a. position top-left corner
           (100%, 100% puts top-left of rectangle
            in bottom right corner of box)
        b. using background-position scheme
           (100%, 100% puts bottom-right of rectangle
            in bottom right corner of box)

   3. Using <position> vs [<length>|<percentage>]{2}
        a. Use <position>, like background-position and
           radial-gradients do
        b. Use [<length>|<percentage>]{2} in a way
           that prevents expansion into <position> later
        c. Use [<length>|<percentage>]{2} in a way
           that can extend into <position> later

      Note: b. does not extend well to handle i18n requests
            like using start/end keywords

Received on Wednesday, 30 October 2013 17:30:48 UTC

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