W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > June 2012

Re: [css3-background] Animatable: lines

From: Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu <kennyluck@csail.mit.edu>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 12:48:08 +0800
Message-ID: <4FD57888.6090301@csail.mit.edu>
To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
CC: WWW Style <www-style@w3.org>
(12/06/08 7:23), L. David Baron wrote:
> background-size
>   Animatable: between two lengths as <a
>   href="http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-transitions/#animatable-types">length</a>,
>   between two percentages as <a
>   href="http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-transitions/#animatable-types">percentage</a>,
>   between a length and a percentage (in either order) as a calc
>   [FIXME: link needed here, probably to css3-values defining the new
>   animation type],
>   otherwise no

Is this missing, say, between two calc()s, or not?

I see three points why we should just say "yes, as usual"/"as usual" and
link to css3-values for some of the "Animatable:"/"Computed Value:" lines.

1. The "Animatable:" lines are long and redundant (even worse if calcs()
are added in).

2. This would prevent us from casually changing the lines to have
different semantics. As I pointed out before, for 'background-image',
CSS 2.1 uses

  # Computed Value: absolute URI or none

but CSS3 B&G uses

  # Computed Value: as specified, but with URIs made absolute

. These are semantically different in an environment where not every
URIs can be made absolute (i.e. invalid URIs).

3. "Computed value: absolute length" doesn't seem to cover the calc()s.


Cheers,
Kenny
Received on Monday, 11 June 2012 04:48:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:55 GMT