W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > July 2004

Re: Multiple Text Decoration Values

From: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
Date: Sun, 4 Jul 2004 22:36:16 -0700
Message-ID: <008301c46251$fe307c80$0401a8c0@ATHLON>
To: <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, "David Woolley" <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
Cc: <www-style@w3.org>

1) Blinking and other sorts of animation - dynamic effects-
are easy implementable using client-side scripting.
So why duplicate this in CSS with such rudimental functionality?

2) Blinking makes sense only for media=screen and this is another reason why
it should be deprecated.

3) I can see some ergonomical sense (it does exist though) if it would be a
function with e.g. how-many-times-to-blink parameter. Example I can recall
easily: blinking margin borders in the Inspector tool (Mozilla). But this is
not a text and it has limited number of blinks.

4) Animation is usefull in general. Examples: transitional effects in MAC
and Windows OSes.
But 'text-decoration: blink' is so primitive that it cannot be considered
even as a sort of solution.

Andrew Fedoniouk.
http://terrainformatica.com



>
> David Woolley wrote:
> >>I don't think so.  I argued for it [blinking]
> >>to be deprecated ... and *drop* it from CSS3 Text
> >
> > The problem with removing undesirable features that are popular...
>
>    I wouldn't call blinking text popular.  Very few sites actually use
> either <blink> or 'text-decoration: blink' because most people either
> know how annoying it is or won't bother cause it doesn't work in IE.
>
> > (Certainly, for me, blinking would suggest a site with little useful
> > content.)
>
>    Agreed.  The only places I ever see blinking text (usually done with
> animated gifs or flash) is for advertisments which is never useful
content.
>
> --
> Lachlan Hunt
Received on Monday, 5 July 2004 01:36:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:31 GMT