- From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 10:56:34 -0700
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, François REMY <fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr>, www-style@w3.org
- Message-Id: <B8393CFE-BFC2-4842-8304-8369080D181E@gmail.com>
On Apr 22, 2010, at 10:23 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > It matters very much which space the specified value is in. This is > unambiguous in normal CSS, because it's defined simply by whatever > unit you use to specify the value. But this new get/set method makes > it ambiguous. If you specify a width in %s, then say width.px++, what > happens? Does it convert it to an equivalent value in % space? Does > it switch it to absolute space? These are the questions. My answer was to convert to the absolute space on the get to add the px, then convert back to % to set. > Does it mix the two, implicitly > creating a calc() expression? That is what Fremy seemed to ask for, but I didn't think it would be appropriate to change the "space" just to add a pixel. But maybe. Either would be better than throwing an error, I feel. > What if you then say width.em++? What > about more complex values, such as if we introduce a flex unit and I > say width.flex++? Does it even make *sense* to talk about converting > between flexes? That just makes my head hurt. > There are multiple ways to approach this, but we need to settle on a > definite way. Agreed. >> If you actually wanted to go further and change the margin-top to a calc value, you would instead do something like this: >> >> style.margin.m.top.calc.px++ >> >> Then, if the margin-top in the example would become "calc(15%+1px)", and in a different example where margin-top already had a calc value, then it would become "calc((<previous-formula>)+1px)". If you wanted to convert a value to calc when getting it (for whatever strange reason), you could do that like this: >> >> style.margin.m.top.calc // --> "calc(15%)" in the first example > > Making calc()ing an explicit option would be pretty cool, but let's > solve the base problem first. ^_^ True enough, but it is something to keep in mind while solving the base problem. Especially if we are considering setting a value to 'calc()' as the result of incrementing a pixel value on a percentage. Which I don't think is the best way as long as we are going to allow calc values to be got and set explicitly.
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: smime.p7s
Received on Thursday, 22 April 2010 17:57:14 UTC