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

On Jan 2, 2014, at 23:36 , Dirk Schulze <> wrote:

> On Jan 2, 2014, at 11:49 PM, Alan Stearns <> wrote:
>> On 12/5/13, 4:49 PM, "Alan Stearns" <> wrote:
>>> On 12/5/13, 4:01 PM, "Sylvain Galineau" <> 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
>>> weíve changed shape-inside:auto to not have a special meaning Iím not
>>> against changing auto to none. But Iím not entirely convinced none is
>>> significantly better.
>>> So itís either:
>>> The meaning of shape-outside:auto is that the float area (or exclusion
>>> area) uses its default behavior. Itís still a shape, itís 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.
> ínone' would make make the syntax of clip-path and shape-outside more alike which is nice. I assume that authors can live with Ďautoí or ínoneí.
> The question is, shape-outside: auto/none means that CSS Shapes does not contribute of the layout, right? In this case ínoneí might be more preferable to indicate that?

FWIW, 'none' makes more sense to me as well.

- Bem

Received on Friday, 3 January 2014 18:24:26 UTC