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

Re: css-shapes] Comments on CSS Shapes ED

From: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 07:23:23 -0700
To: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CE58E9BD.3E76C%stearns@adobe.com>
On 9/13/13 4:04 PM, "Håkon Wium Lie" <howcome@opera.com> wrote:

>Alan Stearns wrote:
>
> > >So, what would your code look like that would produce this example?
> > >
> > >  http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-page-floats/exclusions-dropcap.png
> > 
> > That's my example, you know.
>
>  
>My preferred solution would be:
>
>      exclude-level: 0.5;
>      shape-margin: 0.2em; /* or something */

You would probably also need to include some margin-top somewhere (as you
do in your specification) to make sure the content did not run through the
ascender area above the lower-case letters in this example. So you'd
probably still end up with some content-specific styling.

As I've said, I think we should have this capability. But my future
solution would look something like

   shape-outside: element(self);
   shape-margin: 0.2em;

Where 'self' is whatever mechanism we use to allow self-references for
reflections and other uses of element() that can avoid a cycle (see issue
8 in Images 4 [1]).

I don't think we're disagreeing about the end-game. We just have different
priorities for what should come first.

Thanks,

Alan

[1] http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-images/#issue-5a4722f8
Received on Friday, 13 September 2013 14:24:05 UTC

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