- From: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>
- Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2014 22:35:38 +0000
- To: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On 12/22/13, 4:27 AM, "Dirk Schulze" <dschulze@adobe.com> wrote: > >On Dec 20, 2013, at 10:10 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com> >>wrote: >>> The <box> value is defined in CSS Backgrounds and Borders [1] to have >>> three possible values (border-box, padding-box and content-box) for the >>> background-clip property. >>> >>> I’m adding margin-box to the <box> values in CSS Shapes [2]. This >>>value is >>> useful in shape-outside, but not useful for background-clip. >>> >>> Dirk just added bounding-box (as a separate value) to clip-path [3]. >>>That >>> value makes sense for that property, but isn’t terribly useful for >>> shape-outside or background-clip. Should bounding-box be added to >>><box> in >>> CSS Masking, or stay separate? >>> >>> Is there any issue with my adding margin-box to the <box> production >>>when >>> that value isn’t useful for background-clip? Is there anything special >>>I >>> should be doing with the <box> definition in CSS Shapes to reference >>>the >>> definition in CSS Backgrounds and Borders? >> >> Hm, we can't just expand <box>. margin-box doesn't work if the >> element has collapsible margins (which shape-outside prevents, I >> think?). bounding-box does, but as you note, it's not really useful >> for shapes or background-clip. Plus, box-sizing basically uses <box>, >> it just hasnt' been updated to actually use that grammar nonterminal >> and instead lists the values explicitly. >> >> I think the best solution is to just use <box> and manually add the >> extra values you need in each situation. If it's more convenient, >> define a subterm like "<shape-box> = <box> | margin-box;", etc. > >For what it’s worth, I thought about supporting all boxes from >shape-outside on clip-path as well (including margin-box). I think it >would be good to define <shape-box>. <shape-box> is now defined. Thanks, Alan
Received on Friday, 3 January 2014 22:36:21 UTC