W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2009

Re: [CSS Transitions] Review comments on Editor's Draft Feb 10, 2009

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 11:07:59 -0600
Message-ID: <dd0fbad0902270907k108bddfdy2c12163256cad875@mail.gmail.com>
To: Erik Dahlström <ed@opera.com>
Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 2:54 AM, Erik Dahlström <ed@opera.com> wrote:
> == 2.1 The ‘transition-property’ Property ==
>
> What happens when there's a mismatch between the number of 'transition-property' values and the number of 'transition-duration' values?

Hmm, I don't see it directly in that draft, but it has been brought up
before that in the case of mismatched argument lengths, the shorter
lists cycle.  So the following:

transition-property: opacity, color, left;
transition-duration: 1s, 2s;

is equivalent to:

transition-property: opacity, color, left;
transition-duration: 1s, 2s, 1s;

> == 2.2 The ‘transition-duration’ Property ==
>
> The property uses <time> values, which is different from <Clockvalue> used for specifying time in SVG[3] and SMIL. The grammar of <time> is undefined, though a guess is that it's from CSS 2.1 [2]. If that is the case, there are a few incompatibilies, e.g the ability to specify time in minutes and hours, or a full timevalue with semicolon separators.
>
> What's the rationale for not using the <Clockvalue> syntax?

Is there any reason *to* use such things?  In practice, transitions
are always measured in milliseconds or small numbers of seconds.

Note that the syntax is not *incompatible*, it's merely *incomplete*.
Both <time> and <Clockvalue> use units of s and ms.  Thus it can
always be expanded to support the full range of <Clockvalue> if
necessary without breaking anything.

~TJ
Received on Friday, 27 February 2009 17:08:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:16 GMT