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

Re: [css3-animations] `alternate-reverse` vs `alternate reverse`

From: Lea Verou <leaverou@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 05 May 2012 19:28:16 +0300
Message-ID: <4FA55520.4040704@gmail.com>
To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
CC: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On 5/5/12 19:16, Sylvain Galineau wrote:
> So the set of possible values would be:
> normal
> alternate
> reverse
> alternate reverse
> reverse alternate
> Is that right? I can see how I no longer need to remember whether alternate
> comes first or last but if it looks like a toggle then I'd also expect
> alternate normal to do something and it wouldn't. So while there is a bit of
> extra user-friendliness it seems specific to this one keyword. Or did I get
> the intent and grammar wrong?
My proposed grammar left combinations of `normal` and the other keywords 
out, but I don’t have a strong opinion on it. I think we need more input 
about whether such combinations facilitate learning or confuse authors. 
Functionality-wise, they are completely redundant, so consistency and 
learnability are the only possible benefits.

To be clear, we’re talking about these 4 combinations:
alternate normal
normal alternate
reverse normal
normal reverse

Consistency-wise, I think existing CSS properties usually allow `normal` 
to be combined with other keywords, as long as disambiguation is 
possible. For example, the following declaration is perfectly valid 
(albeit needlessly verbose), even in CSS1:

font: normal normal normal 100%/normal normal;

Lea Verou (http://lea.verou.me | @LeaVerou)
Received on Saturday, 5 May 2012 16:28:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:58 UTC