W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > November 2007

Re: Apple's Proposal for CSS Animation

From: Brad Kemper <brkemper@comcast.net>
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 08:19:21 -0800
Message-Id: <EED8F24F-A440-4168-A301-3C40FB2C393A@comcast.net>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
To: David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com>

On Nov 8, 2007, at 1:28 PM, David Hyatt wrote:

>> Although it does confuse the shorthand if there are two different  
>> things that can be "none", doesn't it? For instance, with this:
>>
>> 		#this { transition: left none ease-in 2s; }
>>
>> "left" could be the name of a CSS property, or it could be a  
>> transition-name, could it not?
>>
>
> At the moment transition-names have to be strings, so there's no  
> ambiguity right now.  I kind of hate this though (as did Bjoern),  
> but as you say, if they are both identifiers there is an  
> ambiguity.  This could perhaps be resolved simply by stating that  
> the first identifier encountered is always transition-property.   
> Perhaps there is precedent for how to resolve this issue with an  
> existing CSS shorthand.

Oh yes, sorry, I see now that it is a quoted string in your examples.  
I did not notice that before, and was thinking it was without quotes.  
If you wanted to do away with the quotes (since it can be cumbersome  
to have to escape them in inline styles or when using JavaScript's  
"document.write" to write style rules), then you would have to  
restrict the names to non-properties. But that would cause forward  
compatibility problems as new properties become supported. It seems  
you already chosen the best solution then. There is no ambiguity with  
"none none" (because it doesn't matter which is which), and if  
transition-name is always quoted, then that removes any other ambiguity.
Received on Friday, 9 November 2007 16:19:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:56 GMT