W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > November 2013

Re: [css-shapes] interpolation update - ready for LC again?

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 13:17:27 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDBQum3fVA6iBB+LOr7_fJ0fcbvC4HKtnUe-JCX9Z1fRcw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>
Cc: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 7:03 AM, Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com> wrote:
> On 11/22/13 5:50 AM, "Dirk Schulze" <dschulze@adobe.com> wrote:
>>> On Nov 22, 2013, at 1:28 AM, "Alan Stearns" <stearns@adobe.com> wrote:
>>> Hey all,
>>> I've updated the interpolation section [1] of CSS Shapes and added
>>> 'Animatable' lines to the propdef tables. This is the last of the
>>> I think were required from TPAC decisions, so I think the draft is ready
>>> for last call again.
>>> In summary, if you're interpolating between <basic-shape> functions, the
>>> functions need to be the same shape, use the same reference box, and
>>> keywords that have no interpolation defined. If all of these strictures
>>> apply, then you interpolate between the function parameters as a simple
>>> list of length, percentage or calc. But I've added one additional rule
>>> that allows interpolation between identical keywords. So 'circle(3em at
>>> top left)' can interpolate with 'circle(6em at top left)'
>>Why not define interpolation for different parts of a shape? For circle
>>you can split it in interpolation for radius and interpolation of
>>position. While one may not be animate able, the other still is. Or is it
>>that what you did?
> I did not do that. I just made it so that you can interpolate between
> identical keywords.
> When a property is defined as interpolating as a simple list of length,
> percentage or calc, and the two lists are:
> 10px foo 10%
> 20px bar 20%
> Does it mean that the property interpolates 10px to 20px, and 10% to 20%,
> and foo to bar is ignored? If that's the case then my additional rule
> about identical keywords isn't needed.

No, if it's defined as interpolating that way, but the value isn't "a
list of length, percentage, or calc", then there's a spec coordination

In particular, background-position interpolation is defined wrong
because of this.

Received on Friday, 22 November 2013 21:18:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 23 January 2023 02:14:34 UTC