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: Mon, 07 May 2012 16:41:34 +0300
Message-ID: <4FA7D10E.307@gmail.com>
To: "Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu" <kennyluck@csail.mit.edu>
CC: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, WWW Style <www-style@w3.org>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>

On 7/5/12 07:41, Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu wrote:(12/05/06 0:28), Lea Verou wrote:
> If you look at CSS3, then there are several longhand properties that
> disallow 'normal' to be combined with other keywords, including all the
> font-variant-* (and the 'font-variant' shorthand actually) and
> 'unicode-bidi'. That is, I think the consistency is in favor of the
> other way around.
Yes, `font-variant` was the one I had in mind too. At first I thought 
it's not allowed for disambiguation, but now that I think of it, that 
wouldn't be a problem, since it's also the initial value. Therefore, 
you're right.
> I think you meant 'forward' here?
> Yeah, if we can make backwards incompatible change, I'll probably prefer
> something similar: [ backward | forward ] || round.
I have to admit, I would have no clue what `round` means. I don’t think 
`alternate` is a great name, but I personally find it easier to 
understand than `round`.
> As a non-English native speaker, may I ask why we use 'reverse' here
> instead of 'reversed'?
Kenny might have a point here. Every time I taught people about 
`repeating-linear-gradient`, they kept mistakenly typing it as 
`repeated-linear-gradient`. I'd guess it’s the same thing here.

Lea Verou (http://lea.verou.me | @LeaVerou)
Received on Monday, 7 May 2012 13:42:11 UTC

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