- From: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
- Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 22:51:10 +0900
- To: Shane Stephens <shans@google.com>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
> On Jan 11, 2016, at 18:32, Shane Stephens <shans@google.com> wrote: > > Perhaps a simple solution would be to require non-rectangular displays to define a default rectangular view that can be overridden by new round display primitives? Maybe. That said, on watches, the rectangular viewport that is small enough to fit inside the circle (so that there's nothing hidden by the corner) is so tiny I'm not sure that's practical. > The small display size problem (which might require paged media, etc.) is not unique to round displays and therefore should be solved independently. The reason I was suggesting pagination is not so much the small size, but rather the problem with shape-inside when the shape is full. If you do this, you're back with corners hiding things as soon as you've scrolled past the first screen: . ..... ....... ..... . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... If you do that, it's probably better, but most positions along the scrolling axis are terrible, and you would probably want to add scroll snap points, as well as way to position the content within each screen shape. . ..... ....... ..... . . ..... ....... ..... . . ..... ....... ..... . . ..... ....... ..... . The combination of shape-inside:display and pagination of when you overflow that shape sounds more usable. But it's certainly not a simple solution. - Florian
Received on Monday, 11 January 2016 13:51:41 UTC