Re: [css-animations] Editorial: 'intrinsic style'

On Sep 5, 2014, at 1:23 AM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote:

> On Thursday 2014-09-04 19:29 +0000, Sylvain Galineau wrote:
>> On Sep 3, 2014, at 10:35 AM, Dean Jackson <dino@apple.com> wrote:
>>> I made that diagram. Unfortunately I can’t find the original, sorry :(
>>> 
>> Ah well, it's all right.
>> 
>> Aside from the diagram, any objections to 'specified style' per its css-cascade definition? Or what it meant to imply something else?
> 
> Well, in some sense the animation also provides a specified style.
> And there are also some cases where other things override animations
> in the cascade (e.g., with !important):
> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-cascade/#cascade-origin
> the diagram predates the decision of exactly how animations and
> transitions fit in to the cascade.
> 
> The diagram also glosses over the distinction between specified and
> computed styles, i.e., there's a computation process happening
> somewhere around those arrows.
> 
> I tend to think it might be better to just remove the diagram,
> simplify the associated text, and refer to css-cascade.

That does sound like a good alternative. I think we could even make this
very simple i.e. by replacing the paragraph after the diagram:

# The diagram above shows how property values are computed. 
# The intrinsic style is shown at the top of the diagram. The computed 
# value is derived from intrinsic style at the times when an animation 
# is not running and also when an animation is delayed (see below for 
# specification of animation delay). During an animation, the computed 
# style is derived from the animated value.

With: 

# While running, the animation computes the value of those properties
# it animates. Other values may take precedence of the animated value 
# according to the CSS casde. [link to cascade origin]

Received on Friday, 5 September 2014 21:43:18 UTC