While single attributes are easy to handle, the number of attributes
will drastically increase with all the new CSS attributes. Think of
the 3d transform, and the properties: http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-3d-transforms/
The following properties exits:
* transform
* transform-origin
* transform-style
* perspective-origin
* backface-visibility
The transform property can contain a selection of the following
functions: matrix(), matrix3d(), translate(), translate3d(), translateX
(), translateY(), translateZ(), scale(), scale3d, scaleX(), scaleY(),
scaleZ(), rotate(), rotate3d(), rotateX(), rotateY(), rotateZ(), skewX
(), skewY(), skew(), perspective()
Following the attribute approach (one attribute per function), we
would have to add 25 attributes for CSS 3d Transforms only. That would
be attribute overkill, wouldn't it? Or do we want to add 50-60
attributes to views to support the new CSS features?
- Raju
On Sep 25, 2009, at 4:29 AM, James Robey wrote:
Max Carlson wrote:
The CSS3 draft allows a shadow to be defined with four parameters -
distanceX, distanceY, color and blur radius. Instead of specifying
the x and y offset separately, we thought it made more sense to
specify a distance and angle (in degrees).
I propose exposing these four properties as separate view
attributes (shadowdistance, shadowangle, shadowcolor and
shadowblurradius) so they can be animated.
An alternate approach is to expose them as a single compound
attribute like in CSS3, e.g. 'distance angle color blurradius'.
See http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-background/#the-box-shadow and http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/CR-css3-text-20030514/#text-shadows
for more details.
What do folks think? I have a change ready to go in, but Tucker
reminded me I should solicit feedback first. Thanks!
I like the idea of having them as four animate-able attributes. I
would not like to do string manipulation, of say, the shadow of a
box moving farther away when it's "picked up" for a move.
2 cents
.james
