- From: andruud via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2023 08:00:37 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> Abandon, or narrow in scope? Abandon _in its current form_. :-) If we make `mix()` more eager to resolve itself by computed-value time, then it could be workable. > What happens if this is limited to properties that can have clearly defined interpolations for transitioning/animations/etc? Yes. We could allow it to be _specified_ for anything, but resolve it by computed-value time if there's no interpolation behavior. Examples: - `display: mix(inline; block; 10%)` => computed value: `inline`. (Has no interpolation behavior). - `opacity: mix(0; 1; 10%)` => computed value: `0.1`. (Has interpolation behavior, but still resolves computed-value time). And then we allow `mix()` to actually be the computed value in a select few cases, like [`<transform-list>` edge cases](https://github.com/w3c/css-houdini-drafts/issues/425), or [animating font-palettes](https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/8922) (if we don't go with `font-palette-mix()`). But specifications allow this on a case-by-case basis, not as a blanket "anything can mix". -- GitHub Notification of comment by andruud Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/9343#issuecomment-1720846628 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Friday, 15 September 2023 08:00:39 UTC