- From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 14:35:37 -0700
- To: www-style@w3.org
On Monday 2009-05-18 11:43 -0700, L. David Baron wrote: > On Monday 2009-05-18 11:29 -0700, Chris Marrin wrote: > > We follow the CSS rules for the background property, described in CSS3: > > > > http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-background/#layering > > Except the rules for 'background' layers have been changed so that > the number of layers is the number of values for 'background-image': > > http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-background/#layering > > > We follow this literally, so your last two examples would actually > > produce 4 transitions, with the 'color' property being duplicated. This > > would reduce back down to 3 transitions because the first 'color' > > property animation would be overridden by the second. So in your last > > example you'd end up with a color transition of 9738 seconds. > > > > I think this is the appropriate way to interpret this rule. Adding > > special cases (as in your rules 2 and 3) just gives authors more things > > to remember. > > I don't think it's particularly hard to remember that the number of > transitions is the number of values of 'transition-property', which > is really all I was proposing. And, to follow up on this issue: If the resolution of the issue in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009May/0153.html is that the first one wins, then it would be undetectable which choice we take here (all or just 'transition-property'). However, if the resolution of that issue is (as proposed) that the last one wins, then extending the transition-property list can lead to rather strange behavior. So I'd prefer to say that the number of transitions is the number of values of 'transition-property'. -David -- L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ Mozilla Corporation http://www.mozilla.com/
Received on Friday, 7 August 2009 21:36:21 UTC