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

Re: [css-images] color stops transition

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2013 08:18:45 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDCM-3v3zif3ip3w8y2bYmCU_J+MXvHh7tsbBO=KHxapsw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 3:39 AM, Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com> wrote:
> On Aug 19, 2013, at 11:21 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 12:29 AM, Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> There is a post processing step that "orders" color stops if a user specifies them out of order. This creates the actual list of color stops[1].
>>> ""
>>> The following steps must be applied in order to process the list of color stops
>>> ""
>>> The paragraph about interpolation says[2]:
>>> ""
>>> Interpolate each component and color-stop of the gradients independently.
>>> ""
>>> Is this animation done on the post processed color stops, or the specified color stops?
>> Sorry, this is unclear in the spec.  The intention is that you process
>> the stops first, then interpolate the processed positions.  I think
>> this then requires you to do step 2 of the fixup *again*, as I believe
>> the stops can get misordered during the transition.
> If you require to order color stops before you interpolate, then you implicitly require to have layout happen at this time as well. To order color stops, you need to know the gradient length.

Indeed.  Thus, my (and Shane's) longstanding suggestion that we swap
steps 2 and 3, and only perform the new step 3 at layout time.  Like I
said in another thread earlier, I think we rejected this earlier
because everyone was just burned out on gradients tweaking and wanted
to settle the spec.  I think we could fix it now.  I'll bring it up on
the call.

Received on Tuesday, 3 September 2013 15:19:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 23 January 2023 02:14:31 UTC