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



On 10/29/13 5:46 PM, "fantasai" <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:

>On 10/22/2013 12:46 PM, Sylvain Galineau wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10/21/13 11:15 PM, "fantasai" <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Secondly, I am dubious as it is about consistency with SVG being
>>> of utility here, especially if it's not supported by use cases.
>>> But choosing consistency with SVG over and instead of consistency
>>> with CSS *in a CSS feature described with CSS syntax* seems a
>>> little absurd.
>>
>> I don't think it's absurd at all, based your exact argument; because
>> nobody uses CSS in isolation. They use CSS together with HTML,
>>JavaScript,
>> SVG...We should thus think of good design for the platform, not just for
>> CSS. If SVG defines some basic primitive one way and CSS another then
>> those authors who use both - a growing number in these high-DPI days -
>> have to learn multiple syntaxes and ways to do things without a clear
>> benefit. And it ain't a great way to spend tester and implementer time
>> either. To the extent SVG already has a working model to define shapes I
>> think your reasoning is exactly what makes it a natural starting point
>>or,
>> at least, a valid consideration. It doesn't mean we'll always be able to
>> come up with something harmonious. It's also possible the result, while
>> coherent and workable, is too unwieldy. But there is reasonable merit in
>> *trying* to make the platform consistent when/if we can, not just CSS
>> consistent with itself. I do not think we do authors any favor when we
>> ignore the rest of the platform.
>
>My point is, CSS has a syntax for positioning rectangles within rectangles
>*since Level 1*. Choosing consistency with SVG's way of positioning
>rectangles *over and instead of* consistency with CSS's way of positioning
>rectangles *in CSS* makes no sense whatsoever.

I believe the proposal was to allow this syntax *in addition* to the more
CSS-compatible syntax, not *instead of*.
If you are writing a clip path in an SVG document - or reading one
generated by a tool - I think the viewBox-like syntax make sense and is
arguably user-friendlier than the alternative (which, incidentally, I have
never found to be that usable so I'm somewhat biased).

>
>If CSS didn't have a way of doing this, then sure, borrowing conventions
>from SVG would make sense. But we already have conventions for it in CSS.
>A language should be consistent with itself first, consistent with other
>languages second.

We agree consistency with other languages is neither forbidden nor
undesirable. A language that does nothing by itself and is always used in
conjunction with other languages is unlikely to be hurt by allowing *some*
consistency with the document formats it's most often used with. Yes, I
know, CSS is supposed to be document language-agnostic. Whether this
larger principle results in a more usable language is imo debatable.

Received on Thursday, 31 October 2013 05:19:50 UTC