W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2013

Re: [css-animations] Dealing with ambiguous animation shorthands

From: Menard, Alexis <alexis.menard@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 12:33:31 +0000
To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <978EB269-D376-48BF-B472-9BBF6683A036@intel.com>
Hi,

On Aug 16, 2013, at 5:02 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 12:40 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
>> More important, though, is the question of what to do when *all* the
>> keywords are valid for animation-* properties.  Which, if any, are the
>> animation-name value?  I believe browsers are inconsistent here.
> 
> To be more specific, here are some examples.
> 
> Is "animation: ease-in backwards;" equivalent to "animation: foo
> backwards;" (take first when ambiguous), "animation: ease-in foo;"
> (take last when ambiguous), or "animation: none ease-in backwards;"
> (only take animation name when *not* doing so would be an error).
> 
> What about "animation: ease-in ease-out backwards;"?
> 
> Alternately, could we simplify things and just always take the first
> keyword as animation-name?

Then we'll need to update the definition of the animation, right now it uses "||" which mean they can come in any order.

I'm fine with aligning the parsing in Blink if needed but this is a significant behaviour change, I'm wondering what others think about it, could it break lot of stuff around?

Thanks.

> 
> ~TJ
> 
Received on Monday, 19 August 2013 12:33:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 19 August 2013 12:33:59 UTC