- From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 01:55:09 +0000
- To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- CC: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
[L. David Baron:] > On Friday 2010-10-22 22:04 +0000, Sylvain Galineau wrote: > > The current Editor's Draft [1] defines both the following rules: > > > > # If one of the identifiers listed is a shorthand property, > > implementations # must start transitions for any of its longhand > > sub-properties that are animatable, # using the duration, delay, and > > timing function at the index corresponding to the # shorthand. > > > > # If a property is specified multiple times in the value of 'transition- > property' > > # (either on its own or via a shorthand that contains it), then the > > transition that # starts uses the duration, delay, and timing function > > at the index corresponding to # the last occurrence of the property. > > > > What seems undefined is whether the following results in a duplicate: > > > > transition-property: border-width, border-right-width; > > transition-duration: 3s, 1s; > > > > In other words, should this be equivalent to (a): > > > > transition-property: border-top-width, border-bottom-width, > > border-left-width, border-right-width; > > transition-duration: 3s, 3s, 3s, 1s; > > > > Or (b): > > > > transition-property: border-top-width, border-right-width, > > border-bottom-width, border-left-width, border-right-width; > > transition-duration: 3s, 3s, 3s, 3s, 1s; > > So the current editor's draft contains the wording: > > # If a property is specified multiple times in the value of > # ‘transition-property’ (either on its own, via a shorthand that > # contains it, or via the ‘all’ value), then the transition that > # starts uses the duration, delay, and timing function at the > # index corresponding to the last item in the value of > # ‘transition-property’ that calls for animation that property. > > (It's been there for a bit, though I just modified it a bit to match a > resolution regarding 'all' that we made at TPAC.) > > I think this makes things clear enough. Does it seem ok to you? > It does, yes. Though the last line looks odd. Did you mean ...that calls for animation *of* that property Or ....that calls for animating *that* property
Received on Friday, 17 February 2012 01:56:11 UTC