3 ms·

You are applying your ego and identity to this. The poster above you is correct, it’s just boxes. And, why wouldn’t it just be boxes? You screens are just smal

You are applying your ego and identity to this. The poster above you is correct, it’s just boxes. And, why wouldn’t it just be boxes? You screens are just small little boxes (pixels), and everything you put on it takes up an area of pixels.

eyelidlessness 6y ago
It has nothing to do with my ego or identity. I was a long time FE dev years ago but probably moderately skilled today. But even according to the spec it’s not just boxes. Putting aside browser quirks, there’s frickin SVG. There’s the `path` type. There’s shapes you can flow content around, including arbitrary image alpha layers. There’s radial gradients. There’s conic gradients. There’s border radii (which are non-rectangular enough a recent post on css-tricks.com featured a post on a “font” using only border-radius). There’s a whole cottage industry of CSS-only graphics. Sure, the base primitives are rectangular and like you said why wouldn’t they be? Everything visual starts with x1/y1/x2/y2 in a sense.
- DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
  CSS-for-SVG is not the same as CSS-for-SGML/XML/HTML though - it's a special case: SVG uses CSS to provide for cascading properties, but not for the visual-formatting model. But entirely I agree it's confusing and contrary to the normal use of CSS. I feel the working-group should have called it "CSP" for "Cascading SVG Properties" instead of appropriating the CSS moniker because that's led to confusing and broken expectations.
  - eyelidlessness 6y ago
    That’s an important distinction, which I appreciate. It’s worth noting that there are a lot of things in CSS-for-SGML/XML/HTML that look like CSS-for-SVG (like the aforementioned `path` type) and are decidedly non-rectangular.
rkhassen9 6y ago
Just boxes. Sure, ok by the same logic, singing is just air, writing is just words, movies are just light and sound. Code is just directions. You can reduce anything to it’s elements and it’s hard to argue, the basic truth of that, but the art is being able to do beautiful things with those elements can vary quite a bit with each medium. And with css, it is quite complex to be able do it well.

eyelidlessness 6y ago

It has nothing to do with my ego or identity. I was a long time FE dev years ago but probably moderately skilled today. But even according to the spec it’s not just boxes. Putting aside browser quirks, there’s frickin SVG. There’s the `path` type. There’s shapes you can flow content around, including arbitrary image alpha layers. There’s radial gradients. There’s conic gradients. There’s border radii (which are non-rectangular enough a recent post on css-tricks.com featured a post on a “font” using only border-radius). There’s a whole cottage industry of CSS-only graphics. Sure, the base primitives are rectangular and like you said why wouldn’t they be? Everything visual starts with x1/y1/x2/y2 in a sense.

DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
CSS-for-SVG is not the same as CSS-for-SGML/XML/HTML though - it's a special case: SVG uses CSS to provide for cascading properties, but not for the visual-formatting model. But entirely I agree it's confusing and contrary to the normal use of CSS. I feel the working-group should have called it "CSP" for "Cascading SVG Properties" instead of appropriating the CSS moniker because that's led to confusing and broken expectations.
- eyelidlessness 6y ago
  That’s an important distinction, which I appreciate. It’s worth noting that there are a lot of things in CSS-for-SGML/XML/HTML that look like CSS-for-SVG (like the aforementioned `path` type) and are decidedly non-rectangular.

rkhassen9 6y ago

Just boxes. Sure, ok by the same logic, singing is just air, writing is just words, movies are just light and sound. Code is just directions. You can reduce anything to it’s elements and it’s hard to argue, the basic truth of that, but the art is being able to do beautiful things with those elements can vary quite a bit with each medium. And with css, it is quite complex to be able do it well.