- From: Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu <kennyluck@csail.mit.edu>
- Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 00:10:18 +0800
- To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- CC: WWW Style <www-style@w3.org>
(12/04/25 23:44), L. David Baron wrote: > On Tuesday 2012-04-10 02:11 +0800, Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu wrote: >> While reviewing CSS3 V&U, I realized that 'cycle()' doesn't really solve >> a use case I thought it would solve. >> >> Use Case A: In a User Interface built by nesting elements (say, >> <table>), set background color on the elements alternatively along the >> nesting level. See picture[1] > > Yes, it doesn't solve this case alone. (I've also never seen any > other examples of this case.) I agree that this case isn't common, but still, in my situation I never need B and C. > It does solve this case in combination with variables, though, and > I think that's a better solution than making cycle() more complex. > > For example: > > table { > var-cycling-background: cycle(white, gray); > background: var(cycling-background); > } This seems like an interesting solution. I don't have objection to keep the current definition as it it, but I want to mention that after I realized that 'cycle()' doesn't work with my case I asked about "how do I do this in CSS?" in a channel of mostly Web developers, a guy did say "in the future, you can use cycle()". I guess this is learnable but who knows. Cheers, Kenny
Received on Wednesday, 25 April 2012 16:10:51 UTC