- From: Lee Kowalkowski <lee.kowalkowski@googlemail.com>
- Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 10:43:58 +0000
- To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On 11/11/2010, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote: > I think you are just getting too hung up on the word "hack". I think you're probably right. >> There was a suggestion from Behdad about using them independently in >> CSS Animations. That sounds good, what about that? > > I think that is a much more compelling reason, although as Simon pointed > our, it is a more general problem than just background-position. So perhaps > a more general solution is needed. I think Simon was indicating that all compound properties will be limited via the lack of individual properties. Of the animatable properties, I think this only applies to background-position and crop. As crop looks like it's designed to potentially support non-rectangular shapes, trying to solve that with individual properties could prove to be unscalable (e.g. if polygon was introduced). A general solution may be to leave individual properties and use a keyword which means we don't want the value to be affected (e.g. "same", "passive", "unchanged", "continue", "as-is"). E.g: background-position: 10px unchanged; This could be a more general approach compatible with the likes of crop. -- Lee www.webdeavour.co.uk
Received on Friday, 12 November 2010 10:44:30 UTC