- From: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>
- Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 17:38:21 +0000
- To: "Phillips, Addison" <addison@lab126.com>, www International <www-international@w3.org>
- CC: "CSS WWW Style (www-style@w3.org)" <www-style@w3.org>
On 12/6/13, 1:52 PM, "Alan Stearns" <stearns@adobe.com> wrote: >On 12/6/13, 8:56 AM, "Phillips, Addison" <addison@lab126.com> wrote: > >>Hello CSS, >> >>We notice that CSS Shapes [1] is in Last Call. In July of this year we >>raised an issue [2] related to bidirectionality and Shapes. In the course >>of discussing it, it was suggested [3] that the addition of an "image" >>value to "shape-outside" would address the need for rtlflip-awareness >>(assuming rtlflip is a thing). >> >>Can you update us on whether you think this sufficiently addresses the >>issue of bidirectional image flipping? Also, whether a note indicating >>the inheritance of flipping behavior might be useful in Section 6.1. > >Thanks for the reminder on this. > >A keyword to extract a shape from rendered content has been postponed to >level 2. So that portion of how CSS Shapes handles flipping behavior is >out of scope for this module level. > >But, we have updated shapes-from-image in two ways. > >First, shape-outside now takes an <image> value instead of a bare URL. So >if the flipping switch is defined as an additional <image> value keyword, >you can use that to specify a flipped shape. > >Second, a shape-from-image is sized and positioned as if it were a >replaced element with the element’s used content-box size [1]. So if the >flipping switch ends up as a separate property (like object-fit) then the >flip will be handled there. > >So I believe the current draft handles the prospective flipping behavior >for shape-outside, unless the flipping switch takes some form not noted >above. > >Does this satisfy the I18N WG’s concerns? > >Alan > >[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/css-shapes-1/#shapes-from-image We’re at the end of the comment period - do you have additional comments on this issue, or do you need more time to consider a response? Thanks, Alan
Received on Wednesday, 8 January 2014 17:38:51 UTC