W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > December 2012

[css3-transitions] Inconsistencies on how the equivalent of some timing functions is described.

From: Alexis Menard <alexis.menard@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 09:33:07 -0300
Message-ID: <CAOaK9Am-ZFaZt8M5BW0fNc4f-UpPsXFSeCYasd5WL37jGUNz_A@mail.gmail.com>
To: www-style@w3.org
Hi,

>From http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-transitions/#transition-timing-function-property
I quote :

"
ease
The ease function is equivalent to cubic-bezier(0.25, 0.1, 0.25, 1.0).
linear
The linear function is equivalent to cubic-bezier(0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 1.0).
ease-in
The ease-in function is equivalent to cubic-bezier(0.42, 0, 1.0, 1.0).
ease-out
The ease-out function is equivalent to cubic-bezier(0, 0, 0.58, 1.0).
ease-in-out
The ease-in-out function is equivalent to cubic-bezier(0.42, 0, 0.58, 1.0)"

The definitions of the equivalent in cubic-bezier form are
inconsistent when it comes to optional .0 for numbers.

"The linear function is equivalent to cubic-bezier(0.0, 0.0, 1.0,
1.0)." does not match in styling with "The ease-out function is
equivalent to cubic-bezier(0, 0, 0.58, 1.0)." where 0 is not 0.0.

Same goes to 1.0, should it be 1?

I ran a test in FF, Opera and WebKit the optional .0 is never
returned. So it would return cubic-bezier(0, 0, 0.58, 1) rather than
cubic-bezier(0.0, 0.0, 0.58, 1.0).

In any case we should fix the spec to be consistent.

Thanks

-- 
Alexis Menard

Intel Semiconductores do Brasil Ltda.
Ave Dr. Chucri Zaidan, 940, Brooklin, 10 Andar
04583-904 São Paulo, SP
Brazil

This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
Received on Wednesday, 19 December 2012 12:33:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:21:03 GMT