- From: Liam R. E. Quin <liam@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2016 20:03:02 -0500
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Mon, 2016-12-05 at 15:48 -0800, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 9:05 PM, Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net> > wrote: > > It's been a while since I last though seriously about that, but I > > seem to remember that > > as long as we had something which was continuous, piece-wise > > linear, and strictly monotonic, we were good, > > and that breaking any of the three could mean complications. > > > > mod is piecewise linear, but not continuous or monotonic > > abs is piecewise linear and continuous, but not monotonic > > floor, ceiling, min and max are piecewise linear and continuous, > > and monotonic but not strictly monotonic > > round is piecewise linear but not continuous, and monotonic but not > > strictly monotonic > > > > I may be misremembering the criteria, and they may not all be of > > equal difficulty, though. I seem to remember this discussion being > > raised by dbaron, so maybe he remembers better. > > I think you got it right. Point is that it needs to be invertible to > be usable in several spots in CSS, which those criteria satisfy. Invertible in the sense of f¯¹ ? Is that true of calc()? in general no because you could multiply by zero in an expression. sin(), cos(), sqrt() are probaby OK if defined over a percentage of a circle, but not tan(). But is the inverse function what's actually needed, or just a dependency graph? Liam
Received on Tuesday, 6 December 2016 01:03:15 UTC