- From: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>
- Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2014 23:04:16 +0000
- To: Bem Jones-Bey <bjonesbe@adobe.com>, Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
- CC: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On 1/3/14, 10:23 AM, "Bem Jones-Bey" <bjonesbe@adobe.com> wrote: > >On Jan 2, 2014, at 23:36 , Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com> wrote: > >> >> 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? > >FWIW, 'none' makes more sense to me as well. OK, that’s three votes for none, and one meh for either. I’ve changed the initial shape-outside value from auto to none. Thanks, Alan
Received on Friday, 3 January 2014 23:04:57 UTC