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

[css-shapes][css2.1] <basic-shape> vs. <shape>

From: Sebastian Zartner <sebastianzartner@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 08:41:16 +0200
Message-ID: <CAERejNYNMJ++SqpU0mQ2bDoH9FTxgUkLimi1q9KZBO=a0DJecA@mail.gmail.com>
To: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Why are there two definitions for shapes? The <shape> value defined in CSS
2.1[1] (and used for the clip property) and the <basic-shape> value defined
in the CSS Shapes Module[2].
Furthermore they both contain different syntaxes for describing rectangular
shapes, i.e. rect() and rectangle().
Shouldn't both be merged into one definition? Or the definition in the
Shapes Module extend the one described in CSS2.1?
I noticed there has already been a related discussion about this[3], though
it seems without clear resolution.


[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/visufx.html#value-def-shape
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-css-shapes-1-20130620/#ltbasic-shapegt
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012Sep/0061.html
Received on Tuesday, 10 September 2013 06:42:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 23 January 2023 02:14:32 UTC