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

RE: [css3-transitions] In transition-property: all, <property>, is <property> a duplicate ?

From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 23:20:59 +0000
To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
CC: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <045A765940533D4CA4933A4A7E32597E2810CD26@TK5EX14MBXC120.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
> From: L. David Baron [mailto:dbaron@dbaron.org]
> Subject: Re: [css3-transitions] In transition-property: all, <property>,
> is <property> a duplicate ?
> On Friday 2010-10-22 22:42 +0000, Sylvain Galineau wrote:
> > Firefox and Opera certainly seem correct per the syntax. My only
> concern
> > is whether this is what authors expect, specifically in the first
> case where
> > one might expect a default duration for all but overridden for width.
> >
> > WebKit's implementation also behaves as one would expect per the
> duplicate
> > rule so authors don't have to remember that all is a special case.
> Lastly,
> > this does allow them to set a default duration for all animatable
> property
> > together with a few chosen exceptions. If all is a stand-alone value,
> there
> > doesn't seem to be a practical way to do that.
> Yeah, changing the spec to allow 'all' to be special within a list
> makes sense to me.
> I'm not sure if it makes sense for 'none', though, but I guess
> there's no harm, and it makes things more consistent.  (Flipping a
> property to 'none' could save authors from having to remove an entry
> from parallel lists for the other properties.)

I agree there is no harm in making it consistent; and if the consistency 
might even be useful, even better.
Received on Friday, 22 October 2010 23:21:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:40 UTC