- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 6 May 2013 19:49:25 -0700
- To: Brian Birtles <bbirtles@mozilla.com>
- Cc: "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>, Steve Block <steveblock@google.com>
On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 7:09 PM, Brian Birtles <bbirtles@mozilla.com> wrote: > * Authors may expect the same syntax is available in their CSS keyframes > (i.e. '50px add'). We'd need feedback from the CSS WG that they are ok with > this syntax even if they don't add it immediately. This may be problematic > since it requires changes to parsing. I *think* Tab said this wouldn't fly > but that may have been with regards to the previous '+50px' proposal. Tab? > > * Reading or writing the composition mode of a value would require string > parsing. Yeah, I'm against the change for this reason. The property value should be just a property value; intermixing in more syntax makes it harder to work with for both implementors and JS-wielding authors in return for a small terseness gain. If we want to make the compositing op optional, then this *definitely* won't fly, as "add" or "replace" might very well be valid components of a property value, so we can't tell whether the comp-op was omitted or not without ambiguity. ~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 7 May 2013 02:50:15 UTC