- From: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
- Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2014 07:36:27 +0000
- To: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>
- CC: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Jan 2, 2014, at 11:49 PM, Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com> wrote: > 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. >> >> Or >> >> The meaning of shape-outside:none is that the float area (or exclusion >> area) is not modified by an explicit shape. >> >> Opinions? > > Any opinions on using auto versus none for shape-outside? Either one would > be fine by me. ’none' would make make the syntax of clip-path and shape-outside more alike which is nice. I assume that authors can live with ‘auto’ or ’none’. The question is, shape-outside: auto/none means that CSS Shapes does not contribute of the layout, right? In this case ’none’ might be more preferable to indicate that? Greetings, Dirk > > Thanks, > > Alan >
Received on Friday, 3 January 2014 07:36:57 UTC