- From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 09:43:16 -0700
- To: Carine Bournez <carine@w3.org>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Thursday 2012-09-20 10:22 -0400, Carine Bournez wrote:
> But it seems to me that the intent of the spec is that the comma separates each animation,
> so the correct thing to write would be:
> ex { animation: normal 1s none, reverse 1s forwards, 1s }
Yes.
> Also there's surely an ambiguity since animation-name and animation-fill-mode both
> allow "none" as a value. (maybe change one of those 2 names?)
This is true for any keyword value of another property interacting
with animation-name, since animation-name accepts any keyword. (See
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Apr/0344.html .)
> My suggestion is to rewrite the grammar in the same style as background is written:
> - rewrite all the animation-xyz properties e.g. for animation-fill-mode:
>
> <animation-fill-mode> = <anim-fill-mode> [, <anim-fill-mode> ]*
>
> with <anim-fill-mode> = [ none | forwards | backwards | both ]
Agreed, though I'd probably switch to something like
<fill-mode-item> to make it a little more different from the name of
the property. This would also make the syntax clearer and reduce
the risk of editing errors.
And the same issue applies to
http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-transitions/
> - describe the shorthand in terms of anim-xyz instead of animation-xyz:
Yes, agreed.
-David
--
𝄞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 𝄂
𝄢 Mozilla http://www.mozilla.org/ 𝄂
Received on Thursday, 20 September 2012 16:43:44 UTC