- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 11:12:11 -0700
- To: "Menard, Alexis" <alexis.menard@intel.com>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 5:33 AM, Menard, Alexis <alexis.menard@intel.com> wrote: > On Aug 16, 2013, at 5:02 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 12:40 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: >>> More important, though, is the question of what to do when *all* the >>> keywords are valid for animation-* properties. Which, if any, are the >>> animation-name value? I believe browsers are inconsistent here. >> >> To be more specific, here are some examples. >> >> Is "animation: ease-in backwards;" equivalent to "animation: foo >> backwards;" (take first when ambiguous), "animation: ease-in foo;" >> (take last when ambiguous), or "animation: none ease-in backwards;" >> (only take animation name when *not* doing so would be an error). >> >> What about "animation: ease-in ease-out backwards;"? >> >> Alternately, could we simplify things and just always take the first >> keyword as animation-name? > > Then we'll need to update the definition of the animation, right now it uses "||" which mean they can come in any order. No, we just need to add to the prose. Note that delay and duration are also part of the || group, for simplicity, but we define in prose how to resolve which is which. > I'm fine with aligning the parsing in Blink if needed but this is a significant behaviour change, I'm wondering what others think about it, could it break lot of stuff around? Yes, that's the purpose of this thread. ^_^ ~TJ
Received on Monday, 19 August 2013 18:12:59 UTC