Re: [css-shapes] Animating <basic-shape>s updated

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?

Thanks,

Alan

Received on Wednesday, 29 January 2014 17:55:31 UTC