- From: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
- Date: Sun, 4 Jul 2004 22:36:16 -0700
- 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 UTC