- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:34:07 -0800
- To: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
- Cc: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>, "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for all the feedback! > I fixed all the typos and dashing problems. Let me know if you find more. > > On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 10:44 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 8:37 AM, Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com> wrote: >> > Can the 'mix' property syntax get simplified more from: >> > >> > <mixarea> = <area>? && <blendmode>? && <composite>? && >> > <isolation’>? && <knock-out’>? >> > >> > to: >> > >> > <mixarea> = <area> || <blendmode> || <composite> || <isolation> >> > || <knock-out> >> >> This is not only simpler, but also more correct. The current spec >> allows you to specify *none* of the possibilities, so that "mix: , , , >> ,;" is valid according to the grammar. ^_^ > > > I changed this to the following: > > <mix-area> = <area>? && [<blend-mode> || <composite-mode> || > <isolation-mode> || <knock-out-mode>] > > With your suggestion it's possible to write: > > mix: element, background > > which makes nonsensical. Ah, good catch, yes. ~TJ
Received on Monday, 14 January 2013 21:34:54 UTC