sadly, same as on my other feature entry, i forgot the checkmark, fixed! 
sorry

[email protected] schrieb am Montag, 24. August 2026 um 19:23:24 UTC+2:

> On 8/23/26 10:06 a.m., Helmut Januschka wrote:
>
> *Contact emails*
> [email protected]
>
> *Specification*
> https://drafts.csswg.org/css-shapes-1/#basic-shape-functions
>
> *Summary*
> The circle() and ellipse() CSS basic-shape functions accept the 
> closest-corner and farthest-corner radius keywords, in addition to the 
> existing closest-side and farthest-side. These keywords resolve to the 
> Euclidean distance from the shape center to the nearest or farthest corner 
> of the reference box, matching the long-standing behavior of 
> radial-gradient(). They work in clip-path, shape-outside, and offset-path, 
> so the same shape syntax accepted by gradients now works for shapes. CL: 
> https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/7767079
>
> *Blink component*
> Blink>CSS 
> <https://issues.chromium.org/issues?q=customfield1222907:%22Blink%3ECSS%22>
>
> *Web Feature ID*
> shapes <https://webstatus.dev/features/shapes>
>
> *Motivation*
> The <radial-extent> keywords closest-corner and farthest-corner are 
> defined for radial gradients and have been interoperably supported there 
> for years. The circle() and ellipse() basic-shape syntax in CSS Shapes 
> Module Level 1 shares the <shape-radius> production with gradients, but 
> Blink (and Gecko) only accepted closest-side / farthest-side for the basic 
> shapes. That means authors who want a circle that exactly inscribes the 
> reference box's farthest corner have to hand-compute sqrt(w*w + h*h)/2 or 
> fall back to a radial-gradient() mask, even though the keyword exists in 
> the same value space. This change fills in the missing keywords so basic 
> shapes have the full <radial-extent> set: closest-corner: the distance from 
> the center to the closest corner of the reference box. farthest-corner: the 
> distance from the center to the farthest corner of the reference box. For 
> ellipse(), which accepts two independent <shape-radius> values in current 
> implementations, each axis resolves independently to the corner Euclidean 
> distance. A spec ambiguity exists about whether ellipse() should accept one 
> <radial-extent> covering both axes (per the spec text) or two independent 
> ones (current implementation reality). This was discussed in 
> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/13814 and the conclusion from 
> the thread was that the existing two-value interpretation is fine to keep.
>
> *Initial public proposal*
> *No information provided*
>
> *TAG review*
> *No information provided*
>
> *TAG review status*
> Not applicable
>
> *Goals for experimentation*
> None
>
> *Risks*
>
>
> *Interoperability and Compatibility*
> *No information provided*
>
> *Gecko*: No signal
>
> *WebKit*: No signal
>
> Can we request signals? 
>
>
> *Web developers*: No signals
>
> *Other signals*:
>
> *WebView application risks*
>
> Does this intent deprecate or change behavior of existing APIs, such that 
> it has potentially high risk for Android WebView-based applications?
> *No information provided*
>
>
> *Debuggability*
> *No information provided*
>
> *Will this feature be supported on all six Blink platforms (Windows, Mac, 
> Linux, ChromeOS, Android, and Android WebView)?*
> No
>
> Why not? 
>
>
> *Is this feature fully tested by web-platform-tests 
> <https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/main/docs/testing/web_platform_tests.md>?*
> Yes
>
>
> *Flag name on about://flags*
> *No information provided*
>
> *Finch feature name*
> BasicShapeCornerRadius
>
> *Rollout plan*
> Will ship enabled for all users
>
> *Requires code in //chrome?*
> False
>
> *Tracking bug*
> https://crbug.com/361617757
>
> *Estimated milestones*
> Shipping on desktop 155 
> Shipping on Android 155 
> Shipping on WebView 155 
> Shipping on iOS 155 
>
> *Anticipated spec changes*
>
> Open questions about a feature may be a source of future web compat or 
> interop issues. Please list open issues (e.g. links to known github issues 
> in the project for the feature specification) whose resolution may 
> introduce web compat/interop risk (e.g., changing to naming or structure of 
> the API in a non-backward-compatible way).
> *No information provided*
>
> *Link to entry on the Chrome Platform Status*
> https://chromestatus.com/feature/5100672946143232?gate=5910108950364160
>
> This intent message was generated by Chrome Platform Status 
> <https://chromestatus.com/>.
>
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "blink-dev" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to [email protected].
> To view this discussion visit 
> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAFmjHKSp4M_xW9Y4_1x56p_kLHBsY8_NdBUgYAqLjcKTUUsS2w%40mail.gmail.com
>  
> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAFmjHKSp4M_xW9Y4_1x56p_kLHBsY8_NdBUgYAqLjcKTUUsS2w%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"blink-dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To view this discussion visit 
https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/74a85d03-8ddd-4c4f-978d-3401d51b7e0bn%40chromium.org.

Reply via email to