- From: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>
- Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 17:58:10 +0000
- To: Edward O'Connor <eoconnor@apple.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On 5/13/14, 10:38 AM, "Edward O'Connor" <eoconnor@apple.com> wrote: >We should have a keyword that captures the more common >case: > ><img src=foo.png alt="Something meaningful"> > >img { > shape-outside: bikeshed; >} I agree - an idea like this is behind issues 1 and 2 of CSS Shapes level 2 [1]. > >Another advantage of using a new keyword here is that not all images >have a corresponding URL that we can reference. For example: > ><canvas></canvas> > >canvas { > shape-outside: bikeshed; >} One possibility is using the element() <image> value from CSS Image Values level 4 [2]. That would work for both <img> and <canvas> elements. I’ve heard requests for selecting portions of an element to construct a shape as well (background-only, content-only, content-and-background, adding borders (or not) into the mix). Since element() is still being designed, I thought it prudent to wait on this improvement. I pared down level 1 to just use currently-supported <image> values not because I think that ‘attr(src url)’ is the best syntax, but because it was the smallest change that served the use case. And I’m assuming that we’ll want to support all of the <image> values on shape-outside anyway. Do you think we should revisit this decision, or are you OK waiting on your bikeshed value for level 2? Thanks, Alan [1] http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-shapes-2/#shapes-from-image [2] http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-images/#element-notation
Received on Tuesday, 13 May 2014 17:58:53 UTC