- From: Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu <kennyluck@csail.mit.edu>
- Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 12:48:08 +0800
- To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- CC: WWW Style <www-style@w3.org>
(12/06/08 7:23), L. David Baron wrote: > background-size > Animatable: between two lengths as <a > href="http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-transitions/#animatable-types">length</a>, > between two percentages as <a > href="http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-transitions/#animatable-types">percentage</a>, > between a length and a percentage (in either order) as a calc > [FIXME: link needed here, probably to css3-values defining the new > animation type], > otherwise no Is this missing, say, between two calc()s, or not? I see three points why we should just say "yes, as usual"/"as usual" and link to css3-values for some of the "Animatable:"/"Computed Value:" lines. 1. The "Animatable:" lines are long and redundant (even worse if calcs() are added in). 2. This would prevent us from casually changing the lines to have different semantics. As I pointed out before, for 'background-image', CSS 2.1 uses # Computed Value: absolute URI or none but CSS3 B&G uses # Computed Value: as specified, but with URIs made absolute . These are semantically different in an environment where not every URIs can be made absolute (i.e. invalid URIs). 3. "Computed value: absolute length" doesn't seem to cover the calc()s. Cheers, Kenny
Received on Monday, 11 June 2012 04:48:36 UTC