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

Re: Multiple Text Decoration Values

From: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2004 09:32:32 -0700
Message-ID: <001501c462ad$abfe4ad0$0401a8c0@ATHLON>
To: "Mikko Rantalainen" <mira@cc.jyu.fi>, <www-style@w3.org>

Hi, Mikko,

I do not propose to substitute CSS by scripting. Dot.
I don't like text-decoration: blinking because it is absolutely nothing from
aesthetical point of view.

I would understand if we will have in CSS  let's say the following:

#my-blinking-text  {  visibility: visible; }
#my-blinking-text: pulse  {  visibility: hidden;  }

This, at least, will cover more cases than primitive text-decoration:

I mean that we should follow golden rule "criticizing propose" in
discussion -
to discuss real alternatives and solutions rather than pure "blinking is
bad" (which is true).

It is like "tables are bad" screaming without providing *real* substitution
for them.

Andrew Fedoniouk.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mikko Rantalainen" <mira@cc.jyu.fi>
To: <www-style@w3.org>
Sent: Monday, July 05, 2004 2:01 AM
Subject: Re: Multiple Text Decoration Values

> Andrew Fedoniouk / 2004-07-05 08:36:
> > 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?
> Oh, please. If some people really want blinking text, then keep the
> functionality. With CSS we can hopefully design it so that user can
> tell his user agent to display "blink" as normal text. If blinking
> is done with scripting, then the user agent cannot really detect
> that from any other script and I end up getting blinking text, which
> I don't like. Just fix the text-decoration / cascade issue.
> > 2) Blinking makes sense only for media=screen and this is another reason
> > it should be deprecated.
> This reasoning makes absolutely no sense. Do you really think that
> ::hover should be deprecated too? It does work with media=screen
> only, too!
> > 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
> > easily: blinking margin borders in the Inspector tool (Mozilla). But
this is
> > not a text and it has limited number of blinks.
> A setting like this should be in user agent end. See numerous .GIF
> examples; GIF format allows author to specify how many times the
> animation loop is displayed. About 99.999% of all animated GIFs loop
> to the end of the world. If author gets to say how many times a
> piece of text blinks, it will probably blink forever.
> > 4) Animation is usefull in general. Examples: transitional effects in
> > and Windows OSes.
> > But 'text-decoration: blink' is so primitive that it cannot be
> > even as a sort of solution.
> CSS isn't powerful enough language to express transitional effects
> without a huge array of properties and that's something WG doesn't
> want AFAIK. If you want animation, please, use SVG. (And if you
> don't want to use it because the end user software doesn't support
> it, do you really think that any new CSS feature would get supported
> any faster?)
> I don't mind if CSS has numerous possible values for each property
> but I hope CSS doesn't end up having hundreds and hundreds of
> different properties to tweak and all those tweaks interact with
> each other.
> --
> Mikko
Received on Monday, 5 July 2004 12:33:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:14 UTC