W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > January 2011

Re: 'animation' and 'transition' ambiguity?

From: Dean Jackson <dino@apple.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 12:44:13 -0800
Cc: www-style@w3.org
Message-Id: <3B5AD8A9-DEEF-4829-A902-079E19096BB4@apple.com>
To: Eric A. Meyer <eric@meyerweb.com>

On Jan 21, 2011, at 6:58 AM, Eric A. Meyer wrote:

> At 3:14 PM -0800 1/20/11, L. David Baron wrote:
>> There are plenty of cases where the prose expresses additional
>> restrictions over the syntax in the property's header.
>   I suppose, but I keep coming back to 'font', which defines a certain placement for the things it requires and the order in which they are required.  It doesn't seem like it would be that hard to do it here as well.  Perhaps to require that they appear together.  For example:
>   <'transition-timing-function'> || <'transition-property'> ||
>   [ <'transition-duration'> <'transition-delay'>? ]
> Right?  Similar for 'animation', only with two more sets of angle brackets.  That seems like it should have the desired effect.  It's pretty much the proposed version using a slash to separate them, except without the slash.  That seems to me to clarify the intent and not require magic prose.

Are you suggesting that the shorthands always require you to specify a delay if you give a duration? I don't like that, but I agree that the current approach can be confusing (and you're definitely not the first to complain).

I'm not a fan of the slash either. I wonder if the shorthands really needs to include delay at all? Is there a golden rule that a shorthand must be able to do everything the longhands can?

For transitions at least, I expect the most common use is simply transition: property duration; For animations, I don't tend to use the shorthand. 

Received on Sunday, 30 January 2011 20:44:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:07:55 UTC