W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2014

Re: [css-shapes] Animating <basic-shape>s updated

From: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 21:09:16 +0000
To: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CF1544FC.3B05A%stearns@adobe.com>
On 1/31/14, 3:12 PM, "Alan Stearns" <stearns@adobe.com> wrote:

>On 1/29/14, 9:54 AM, "Alan Stearns" <stearns@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>>On 1/28/14, 3:57 PM, "fantasai" <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On 01/28/2014 03:15 PM, fantasai wrote:
>>>> On 01/28/2014 02:44 PM, Alan Stearns wrote:
>>>>> On 1/28/14, 2:33 PM, "fantasai" <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 01/28/2014 02:21 PM, Alan Stearns wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ----
>>>>>>> To serialize the <basic-shape> functions,
>>>>>>> serialize as per their individual grammars,
>>>>>>> in the order the grammars are written in,
>>>>>>> avoiding calc() expressions where possible,
>>>>>>> omitting components when possible without changing the meaning,
>>>>>>> joining space-separated tokens with a single space,
>>>>>>> and following each serialized comma with a single space.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For the <position> values in ellipse() and circle(),
>>>>>>> the 2- and 4-value forms are preferred over the 1- and 3-value
>>>>>>>forms.
>>>>>>> ----
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think we need to be clearer here that the 1- and 3-value
>>>>>> forms aren't ever generated, and the 2-value form is
>>>>>> preferred over 4-value where possible without calc().
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Otherwise looks good.
>>>>>
>>>>> How about:
>>>>>
>>>>> ----
>>>>> The <position> values in ellipse() and circle()
>>>>> serialize to their 2- and 4-value forms only,
>>>>> preferring the 2-value form
>>>>> when it can be expressed without calc()
>>>>> ----
>>>>
>>>> r+
>>>
>>>Actually, it's not clear what happens with
>>>   bottom calc(30%+20px) right calc(30%+20px)
>>>
>>>I.e. I could interpret that sentence as wanting either
>>>   calc(70%-20px) calc(70%-20px)
>>>or
>>>   bottom calc(30%+20px) right calc(30%+20px)
>>>It should be clear that we'd end up as the first.
>>
>>I think ‘omitting components when possible without changing the meaning’
>>covers that case. If you don’t agree with that, do you have a suggestion
>>for what to add to the <position> special casing?
>
>Going through our testcases, the proposed wording above doesn’t say what
>type to use for a missing offset in the 4-value form. So a specified value
>like:
>
>bottom right 10px 
>
>Could serialize to either of these:
>
>right 10px bottom 0%
>right 10px bottom 0px
>
>I’m inclined to go with 0%, just because a percent seems more generic than
>picking a particular distance unit.

Ah, never mind. I found the part of CSSOM that says that it should be 0px
[1].

Fantasai - I’m still waiting on whether you agree that the current wording
covers your case.

Thanks,

Alan

[1] http://dev.w3.org/csswg/cssom/#serializing-css-values


Received on Monday, 3 February 2014 21:10:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:18 UTC