W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > January 2011

Re: 'animation' and 'transition' ambiguity?

From: Eric A. Meyer <eric@meyerweb.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 17:52:40 -0500
Message-Id: <a0623091dc95e6c888dda@[192.168.1.128]>
To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
At 2:40 PM -0800 1/20/11, L. David Baron wrote:

>In the css3-transitions spec, there's additional prose that says:
>   # Note that order is important in this property. The first value
>   # that can be parsed as a time is assigned to the
>   # transition-duration. The second value that can be parsed as a
>   # time is assigned to transition-delay.
>   http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-transitions/#the-transition-shorthand-property-
>
>The css3-animations spec needs similar wording.

    Yes, and then there's an alternate proposal using a slash.
    The point is that the value definition of 'transition' doesn't 
conform with the prose, which seems like a serious mistake to me.  It 
should be possible to write syntax that doesn't require the text, 
right?  All that's needed is to decide which pattern to support and 
then fix the syntax to match.
    I agree that the two shorthands should be consistent, of course!

-- 
Eric A. Meyer (eric@meyerweb.com)     http://meyerweb.com/
Received on Thursday, 20 January 2011 22:53:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:36 GMT