- From: Øyvind Stenhaug <oyvinds@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 17:03:43 +0100
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 16:47:51 +0100, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 1:58 AM, Øyvind Stenhaug <oyvinds@opera.com> > wrote: >> On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 20:15:33 +0100, Tab Atkins Jr. >> <jackalmage@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> There is no ordering for properties to apply; they all apply at the >>> same time. Any behavior otherwise is a bug. >> >> I didn't mean to imply that there would be some non-zero time interval >> in >> which only one of them could be observed to apply. >> >> Another way of phrasing it would be... if 'display: none' is supposed to >> keep transitions from starting, and a switch from state A to state B >> involves a possible transition of some property, then at which state(s) >> should 'display' be examined for the aforementioned rule? > > Right; I understood your meaning. My point was that, if > 'display:none' prevents a transition from starting, then it *always* > prevents a transition from starting. Having it as part of the start > state should suppress everything, because the "is the element > 'display:none' at this point?" check succeeds. OK. I don't think that is obvious (that the check happens at the start state), so I think the spec should be rather explicit about it. -- Øyvind Stenhaug Core Norway, Opera Software ASA
Received on Wednesday, 14 December 2011 16:04:20 UTC