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

Re: [css-variables] Remaining Issues

From: François REMY <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 23:15:38 +0200
Message-ID: <DUB120-DS1006D44B761DAA477CEA83A58E0@phx.gbl>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: "www-style list" <www-style@w3.org>, "Lea Verou" <lea@w3.org>
> The tainting is a "compile-time" operation - even if you never use the
> @keyframes, it'll still taint any variables in it.

Ok, seems about good then.



> Nope, still can't.  #aaa might be an id selector, for example.  We use
> naked id selectors in at least one property, in CSS UI.

That's probably a mistake since we use url(#id) everywhere else, but let's 
suppose that it ends up being implemented that way. Would you want to 
animate this property? Via a custom property? Better question: how more 
likely are you to animate this than you're to animate over a color? (and 
what's the probability you'll want to animate from a color-like ID to 
another color-like ID?)

I don't say we don't want static typing, I just say we should provide 
reasonable defaults so that people do not have to use static typing at least 
95% of the times. The remaining 5% will need static typing, and that's okay.




> This isn't really inference, though.  It's guessing, and it's not 
> reliable.

True. I'm always in favor of guesses that can get very reliable if the 
author can override them, but I agree it's a personal preference. Anyway, 
this is all about L2+ stuff, we'll have much more time to discuss this and 
see what we can do/can't do in the coming years. It's not an issue anybody 
has for Level 1. If basic flip-animatability is on the table, that's all 
right. 
Received on Thursday, 20 June 2013 21:16:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:12 UTC