- From: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
- Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2010 03:28:05 +0200
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: "www-style@w3.org list" <www-style@w3.org>
Also sprach Tab Atkins Jr.: > > > > > > I'd love to add a column with Tab's proposals. Anther tab, so to say :) > > 1a: Thanks, that was quick -- I've added your entries to the table: http://people.opera.com/howcome/2010/ta/index.html > /* I suspect this expresses the notion that you want, where it's > supposed to bounce *while* moving. */ Yes. > /* Also, assuming you mean "the class changes from one to two", rather > than "unhovered". */ Indeed, fixed. > .two { > position: relative; > left: 500px; > play-during: sway 1s 1s; > } > > /* Delay added to make it wait until the transition is done. */ So, the only difference between 'play-in' and 'play-during' is that 'play-during' has 'infinite' as an implicit value? I think your syntax looks good, it's quite readable. I don't like having *four* sets of properties (transition, play-in, play-during, play-out) that all can accept comma-separated values. And I don't like that the "transition" name (which is hard to spell) is still in there. May I suggest that you rename "transition" to "effect" (or something) in your proposal? Håkon's naming priciple: Good names are better than correct names. Cheers, -h&kon Håkon Wium Lie CTO °þe®ª howcome@opera.com http://people.opera.com/howcome
Received on Thursday, 8 April 2010 01:28:43 UTC