W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2013

Re: [css-animations] Dealing with ambiguous animation shorthands

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 11:12:11 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDBL5+P4Vy6Tk6WihZs6QMSgPfDT660CM2-qkukk-yNVJQ@mail.gmail.com>
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.  ^_^

Received on Monday, 19 August 2013 18:12:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:33 UTC