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

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

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 10:38:23 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDDsB2sfdwZpn7b1-3i=Hwi1j=Q8-bDXs6HsAWYhkzRTFA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alexis Menard <alexis.menard@intel.com>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 4:33 AM, Alexis Menard <alexis.menard@intel.com> wrote:
> >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.

It is odd that the spec is inconsistent there.  I agree that we should
either use 0.0 and 1.0 throughout, or just 0 and 1 throughout.

The serialization that you observe is unconnected from what the spec
says, though.  This is just a stylistic spec issue.

~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 19 December 2012 18:39:10 GMT

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