W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > January 2014

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

From: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 23:12:37 +0000
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CF116C54.3AF49%stearns@adobe.com>
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.

Thanks,

Alan

 

Received on Friday, 31 January 2014 23:13:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:39 UTC