- From: Lea Verou <leaverou@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 01 Jan 2012 21:45:36 +0000
- To: Jon Ronnenberg <jon.ronnenberg@gmail.com>
- CC: www-style@w3.org
- Message-ID: <4F00D400.9010908@gmail.com>
On 31/12/11 15:56, Jon Ronnenberg wrote: > Hi group. > > Thetransition shorthand property > <http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-transitions/#the-transition-shorthand-property-> is > neither intuitive or very short when it comes to defining several CSS > properties. > E.G. transition: background-color 1s ease, color 1s ease; > A far more intuitive approach would be to define several properties in > the [<‘|transition-property|’> part. > I.E. transition: background-color, color 1s ease; > As the Draft elaborate on transition-property; Value: none | all | [ > <IDENT> ] [ ‘,’ <IDENT> ]* it is fair to assume that this is also true > when it comes to the shorthand method. It is noted (in the Draft) that > the first value that can be parsed as a time is assigned to the > transition-duration. Hence allowing multiple properties before > transition-duration should not break existing implementations. > // > > DISCLAIMER: I'm not a spec implementer but a front end developer (web > author). Any difficulties in parsing the above proposal haven't been > considered thoroughly. This discussion is only tested on the FF9 and > WebKit 535.7 implementations. > > Cheers, Jon. > > PS. Sorry if this is a re-post. I didn't subscribe properly the first > time I emailed. You don't have to use the shorthand in the case you describe. Doing so is a bad idea as it's quite repetitive (like you pointed out). You can keep your code completely DRY by writing something like: transition: 1s ease; transition-property: background-color, color; The syntax you propose *is* currently allowed actually, albeit with different semantics. The code: transition: 1s ease background-color, color; is parsed as 2 transitions, with the transition for `color` having a duration of 0s and the default easing. So, by making this change, existing implementations would break. The fact that this is not very clear in the spec could be a spec bug though. -- Lea Verou (http://lea.verou.me | @LeaVerou)
Received on Sunday, 1 January 2012 21:46:07 UTC