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

Re: [[css-shapes]] feedback

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 17:13:00 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDA2bbAii7Epgaa5kj5OQbcMhqfxbxv2Kn-1-VbUCQGBJw@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Dailey <ddailey@zoominternet.net>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 5:03 PM, David Dailey <ddailey@zoominternet.net> wrote:
> a)      Just allow the SVG versions of these various basic shapes? That is,
> instead of, for example,
> rectangle([<length>|<percentage>][, [<length>|<percentage>]]
> why not allow  the regular SVG syntax for a <rect>?

What is "the regular SVG syntax for a <rect>"?  The XML?  The
attributes?  Something else?

> b)      Arbitrary <path> elements to flow shape are harder what with all the
> microsyntax of paths, but since all browsers support SVG anyhow (and in
> particular, they all seem to know how to render paths) why not define text
> flow for arbitrary paths? What I found a bit tricky in my implementation was
> following the left and right sides of paths, but compared to the issue of
> concavities (which you seem to be handling with the even-odd fill rule –
> that can get a bit odd at times I’m sure) that seems relatively simple in
> comparison.

Yes, given that we have polygan(), I'm not sure why we wouldn't
support path() as well.  It's just a polygon() with curved paths,
basically - all the other difficulties of path() are already present
and handled in polygon().

~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 10 September 2013 00:13:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:34 UTC