W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > December 2013

Re: [css-background] Animating border-position

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2013 14:32:50 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDCYJ-4m9fzgLjtyN2c0=jpFkjHBgVPwNgQ8rF-fS94a3Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>
Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com> wrote:
> On 12/19/13, 1:43 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
>>If we also allow logicals, then it would be *either* a pair of
>>physical offsets or a pair of logical offsets (or a pair of page
>>offsets, etc).  Then animating only works if you have the same type of
>>offsets.
>
> Each value in the pair could separately be physical or logical, though. I
> guess I’m asking how the difference will be denoted in the computed value.
> The current computed value has implied physical offsets. Once we add
> logical offsets, what gets added to the computed value to set them apart?

Most likely, we'd restrict it at the syntax level so that you can't
specify mixed offsets.  That avoids the problem entirely.

On the other hand, since it seems like we're going to have to specify
bg-pos-x/y (which implicitly set the top/left offsets), it might not
be possible to cleanly do this.  In that case, the computed value
would just have all of them, and we'd have some way of determining
which is used (an explicit ordering, or perhaps a sub-property
dictating which positioning mode should be preferred when there is a
choice).

~TJ
Received on Thursday, 19 December 2013 22:33:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:17 UTC