W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-fx@w3.org > January to March 2013

Re: [compositing] More feedback on property definitions

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:34:07 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDBO0NHkG4wX1hiQj__527WqQWwoy=bBnvCTzY+2ewbxJw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
Cc: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>, "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for all the feedback!
> I fixed all the typos and dashing problems. Let me know if you find more.
>
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 10:44 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 8:37 AM, Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com> wrote:
>> > Can the 'mix' property syntax get simplified more from:
>> >
>> >         <mixarea> = <area>? && <blendmode>? && <composite>? &&
>> > <isolation’>? && <knock-out’>?
>> >
>> > to:
>> >
>> >         <mixarea> = <area> || <blendmode> || <composite> || <isolation>
>> > || <knock-out>
>>
>> This is not only simpler, but also more correct.  The current spec
>> allows you to specify *none* of the possibilities, so that "mix: , , ,
>> ,;" is valid according to the grammar.  ^_^
>
>
> I changed this to the following:
>
> <mix-area> = <area>? && [<blend-mode> || <composite-mode> ||
> <isolation-mode> || <knock-out-mode>]
>
> With your suggestion it's possible to write:
>
> mix: element, background
>
> which makes nonsensical.

Ah, good catch, yes.

~TJ
Received on Monday, 14 January 2013 21:34:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 14 January 2013 21:34:54 GMT