- From: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>
- Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 21:09:16 +0000
- To: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On 1/31/14, 3:12 PM, "Alan Stearns" <stearns@adobe.com> wrote: >On 1/29/14, 9:54 AM, "Alan Stearns" <stearns@adobe.com> wrote: > >>On 1/28/14, 3:57 PM, "fantasai" <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote: >> >>>On 01/28/2014 03:15 PM, fantasai wrote: >>>> On 01/28/2014 02:44 PM, Alan Stearns wrote: >>>>> On 1/28/14, 2:33 PM, "fantasai" <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> >>>>>wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 01/28/2014 02:21 PM, Alan Stearns wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ---- >>>>>>> To serialize the <basic-shape> functions, >>>>>>> serialize as per their individual grammars, >>>>>>> in the order the grammars are written in, >>>>>>> avoiding calc() expressions where possible, >>>>>>> omitting components when possible without changing the meaning, >>>>>>> joining space-separated tokens with a single space, >>>>>>> and following each serialized comma with a single space. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For the <position> values in ellipse() and circle(), >>>>>>> the 2- and 4-value forms are preferred over the 1- and 3-value >>>>>>>forms. >>>>>>> ---- >>>>>> >>>>>> I think we need to be clearer here that the 1- and 3-value >>>>>> forms aren't ever generated, and the 2-value form is >>>>>> preferred over 4-value where possible without calc(). >>>>>> >>>>>> Otherwise looks good. >>>>> >>>>> How about: >>>>> >>>>> ---- >>>>> The <position> values in ellipse() and circle() >>>>> serialize to their 2- and 4-value forms only, >>>>> preferring the 2-value form >>>>> when it can be expressed without calc() >>>>> ---- >>>> >>>> r+ >>> >>>Actually, it's not clear what happens with >>> bottom calc(30%+20px) right calc(30%+20px) >>> >>>I.e. I could interpret that sentence as wanting either >>> calc(70%-20px) calc(70%-20px) >>>or >>> bottom calc(30%+20px) right calc(30%+20px) >>>It should be clear that we'd end up as the first. >> >>I think ‘omitting components when possible without changing the meaning’ >>covers that case. If you don’t agree with that, do you have a suggestion >>for what to add to the <position> special casing? > >Going through our testcases, the proposed wording above doesn’t say what >type to use for a missing offset in the 4-value form. So a specified value >like: > >bottom right 10px > >Could serialize to either of these: > >right 10px bottom 0% >right 10px bottom 0px > >I’m inclined to go with 0%, just because a percent seems more generic than >picking a particular distance unit. Ah, never mind. I found the part of CSSOM that says that it should be 0px [1]. Fantasai - I’m still waiting on whether you agree that the current wording covers your case. Thanks, Alan [1] http://dev.w3.org/csswg/cssom/#serializing-css-values
Received on Monday, 3 February 2014 21:10:02 UTC