-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 51
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[motion] CSS and SVG box correspondence seems overly-simplistic #66
Comments
This should maybe be a duplicate of w3c/csswg-drafts#857. |
Resolved in w3c/csswg-drafts#857 (comment) |
I've copied out the definitions into the css-box-3 module, since that seems like a useful place to centralize these definitions: https://drafts.csswg.org/css-box-3/ My proposal is that we adopt these definitions in css-box-3 and rebase all the other specs' -box property value definitions over it, then push the spec to CR (dropping [See also https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4662 ; I've left the coordinate aspect of the |
I agree that it makes sense to define these in a single place & the box model spec makes as much sense as any. With respect to the definition text:
|
Partially fixed in b0cc95a |
…ppings. Actually define what <coord-box>'s shape is when used alone. #66
…ppings. Actually define what <coord-box>'s shape is when used alone. #66
The Paint module uses a bit more sophistication in its box mappings: content-box | padding-box -> fill-box and border-box -> stroke-box. (The mapping in the other direction relates to text bounds, which is maybe not appropriate here.) At the very least, these two modules should be consistent in how they map the SVG and CSS terms where possible.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: