- From: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 16:29:18 +0100
- To: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>
- Cc: "www-style\@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Alan Stearns wrote: > The CSS WG has published a Last Call Working Draft of the CSS Shapes > Module Level 1: > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/WD-css-shapes-1-20140211/ > Please send any comments to this mailing list, <www-style@w3.org>, and > please, prefix the subject line with The draft, as it stands, has issues. First, by describing the shape of an element in the style sheet, content and presentation is mixed. If images had been referred to in the style sheet (like background images are), this would probably have been ok, but when the elements are HTML elements, CSS should not describe their shapes. Doing so result in style sheets that are not reusable -- they are tied to a specific document with specific HTML elements. This model favors authoring tools and discourages style sheet reuse. Second, the draft uses dummy DIV elements to achive presentational effects. This problem is discussed at some length here: http://alistapart.com/blog/post/css-regions-considered-harmful Third, there is a way to refer to a shape in the image itself, as opposed to writing poloygons in CSS. That's good. However, only the alpha channel of the image can be used. I believe it is much more natural for authors to use the visible luminance of the image, and this option should be added. The current model favors authoring tools. I ask for this issues to be addressed before progressing the draft. My previous commets to the draft are here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2013Sep/0321.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Dec/0482.html And here's a model for runaraound content without the problems described above: http://figures.spec.whatwg.org/ Cheers, -h&kon Håkon Wium Lie CTO °þe®ª howcome@opera.com http://people.opera.com/howcome
Received on Wednesday, 5 March 2014 15:29:51 UTC