W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > July 2010

Re: [css3-transitions] transitioning a shorthand

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2010 23:34:20 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTinSxlW7ssf9hS1pNuIbCeFKB-N6VWr2uxG8kIeO@mail.gmail.com>
To: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>
Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, www-style@w3.org
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 10:56 PM, Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com> wrote:
> On Jul 6, 2010, at 10:33 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 9:14 AM, Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com> wrote:
>>> Note that the spec currently says:
>>>
>>> "a shorthand property: If all the parts of a shorthand can be animated, then interpolation is performed as if each property was individually specified."
>>>
>>> but I don't think this is correct.
>>>
>>> The way WebKit implements this is if *any* part of a shorthand can be animated then it will be, and this works both ways.
>>
>> I thought we were making all properties animateable, so that
>> properties that didn't have special animating behavior just
>> floor/ceiling'd their transition function (I forget which way we
>> decided right now).
>>
>> In that case, the distinction is irrelevant, and in fact the line
>> itself is no longer needed.
>
> I think that's orthogonal to this question. The issue with shorthands, I think, is whether the author expects individual properties to animate when shorthands are used in transition-property, and when the individual properties as changed via shorthand rules.

Ah, sure.  In that case, yes, of course they do, and the webkit
behavior so far as I understand it is correct.  If the spec doesn't
support that currently, it's wrong and needs to change.

~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 7 July 2010 06:35:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:29 GMT