- From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 00:37:58 +0000
- To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
[L. David Baron:] > > In http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012Mar/0013.html > we agreed to accept my proposal in > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012Feb/1083.html for > https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15838 : that is, we agreed > that when transition-duration and transition-delay are both 0s that there > should be no transition (and thus no events). > > However, we didn't agree whether that was the only case. I realized that > there are a set of other cases where there probably shouldn't be a > transition: in particular, when transition delay is as negative or more > negative than transition duration is positive. In these cases the > transition end event would have a firing time at or before the time the > transition started, which suggests to me that maybe it shouldn't fire at > all. > > Thus, I've written: > # When the computed value of a property changes, implementations > # must start transitions based on the relevant item (see the > # definition of ‘transition-property’) in the computed value of > # ‘transition-property’. Corresponding to this item there are > # values of ‘transition-duration’ and ‘transition-delay’ (see the > # rules on matching lists). Define the combined duration of the > # transition as the sum of max(‘transition-duration’, ‘0s’) and > # ‘transition-delay’. When the combined duration is greater than > # ‘0s’, then a transition starts based on the values of > # ‘transition-duration’, ‘transition-delay’, and > # ‘transition-timing-function’; in other cases transitions do not > # occur. > > Does this seem reasonable to others? > My apologies for catching this so late; I agree with the resolution and had only one minor editorial question: is the "max(‘transition-duration’, ‘0s’)" expression needed in this prose given that transition-duration explicitly maps negative <time> values to 0s? Or is this just an editorial reminder to the reader?
Received on Friday, 20 April 2012 00:38:33 UTC