W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > January 2014

Re: [css-shapes] LC feedback - auto versus none

From: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2014 22:49:12 +0000
To: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CEEB2BBE.356E1%stearns@adobe.com>
On 12/5/13, 4:49 PM, "Alan Stearns" <stearns@adobe.com> wrote:

>On 12/5/13, 4:01 PM, "Sylvain Galineau" <galineau@adobe.com> wrote:
>>6.1 The 'shape-outside' Property [3]
>>Bikeshed: I am unsure about 'auto' being the best name for 'using the
>>margin-box as normal'
>I notice that clip-path uses none to mean no shape. I think auto was
>initially used in Exclusions because we had both shape-inside and
>shape-outside, and shape-outside applied to floats and exclusions. The no
>shape scenarios for all of these had slightly different behavior. Now that
>we’ve changed shape-inside:auto to not have a special meaning I’m not
>against changing auto to none. But I’m not entirely convinced none is
>significantly better.
>So it’s either:
>The meaning of shape-outside:auto is that the float area (or exclusion
>area) uses its default behavior. It’s still a shape, it’s just that the
>shape is determined by the float or exclusion behavior before
>shape-outside was defined.
>The meaning of shape-outside:none is that the float area (or exclusion
>area) is not modified by an explicit shape.

Any opinions on using auto versus none for shape-outside? Either one would
be fine by me.



Received on Thursday, 2 January 2014 22:49:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:38 UTC