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

Re: [css-shapes] shape-image-threshold should be clearer about >= vs >

From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 09:15:49 -0700
Message-Id: <F18E875A-2556-43AF-8B14-E191B7E04C45@gmail.com>
Cc: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
To: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>
On Sep 12, 2013, at 8:17 AM, Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com> wrote:

> For a shape-outside URL that points to an SVG image, It would be the
> rendering that determines the shape.

That seems very odd. The SVG defines a shape path and you are defining a thicker path shape. I'd prefer you to honor the real shape defined by the path by default. 

>> For a fuzzier edge image (say, a picture of a smoke puff), I would most
>> likely want my wrapping text to overlap some of the more translucent
>> pixels, not being so far away that the wrapping area isn't even
>> recognizable as being the same general shape. For shape-inside, I'd want
>> a usable amount of space for the text. A 0.5 default would be much more
>> likely to be useful in both cases.
> I disagree - I think that content should by default avoid any rendered
> pixels of the image.

I don't know why you would think that. Do you examples of that (perhaps from print), where the text is wrapping but refuses to overlap pixels (or halftone dots) of even a few percent of a blurry-edged shape? It seems like a rather extreme approach that would be the exception more than the rule. 
Received on Thursday, 12 September 2013 16:16:22 UTC

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