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

RE: [css3-transitions] shorthand/longhand handling in transition property

From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 22:19:50 +0000
To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <045A765940533D4CA4933A4A7E32597E2814C6DD@TK5EX14MBXC120.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
> From: L. David Baron [mailto:dbaron@dbaron.org]
> Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 3:07 PM
> To: Tab Atkins Jr.
> Cc: Sylvain Galineau; Simon Fraser; www-style list
> Subject: Re: [css3-transitions] shorthand/longhand handling in
> transition property
> On Monday 2010-10-25 14:56 -0700, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> > I don't understand.  Dbaron is saying that the current spec text
> > suggests (b).  I am supporting the same thing that dbaron appears to
> > be.
> Well, the current spec text says (a) and (b) do the same thing, so
> I'm not sure that comparing them is useful; 

Right. My example is meant to be a logical representation of what happens.
In the b) case it's meant to convey that two separate transitions are running 
on border-right-width instead of the one resolved by the duplicate rule.

> if you want to think of
> the processing model in terms of expansion and conversion of
> property values (which is probably not the best idea), you go
> through both stages:  the shorthand expands to all four of its
> subproperties (so it's like b), but then one of those subproperties
> is ignored (so it's like a) because it's overridden by a later
> occurrence.

Yes. A) is the result of collapsing the two duplicates in b). The spec
seems pretty clear but given that existiing implementations appeared to
disagree I thought it was worth clarifying. An example involving a shorthand/
longhand pair may be helpful here.
Received on Monday, 25 October 2010 22:20:29 UTC

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