- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 13:17:27 -0800
- 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 >>>changes >>> 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 >>>avoid >>> 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 problem. In particular, background-position interpolation is defined wrong because of this. ~TJ
Received on Friday, 22 November 2013 21:18:14 UTC