Re: [css3-transitions] Inconsistencies on how the equivalent of some timing functions is described.

Fixed in https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/csswg/rev/ab47414d690c

[Apologies for not following the commit message style - I'll do it properly next time]

Dean

On 19/12/2012, at 11:33 PM, Alexis Menard <alexis.menard@intel.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
>> From http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-transitions/#transition-timing-function-property
> I quote :
> 
> "
> ease
> The ease function is equivalent to cubic-bezier(0.25, 0.1, 0.25, 1.0).
> linear
> The linear function is equivalent to cubic-bezier(0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 1.0).
> ease-in
> The ease-in function is equivalent to cubic-bezier(0.42, 0, 1.0, 1.0).
> ease-out
> The ease-out function is equivalent to cubic-bezier(0, 0, 0.58, 1.0).
> ease-in-out
> The ease-in-out function is equivalent to cubic-bezier(0.42, 0, 0.58, 1.0)"
> 
> The definitions of the equivalent in cubic-bezier form are
> inconsistent when it comes to optional .0 for numbers.
> 
> "The linear function is equivalent to cubic-bezier(0.0, 0.0, 1.0,
> 1.0)." does not match in styling with "The ease-out function is
> equivalent to cubic-bezier(0, 0, 0.58, 1.0)." where 0 is not 0.0.
> 
> Same goes to 1.0, should it be 1?
> 
> I ran a test in FF, Opera and WebKit the optional .0 is never
> returned. So it would return cubic-bezier(0, 0, 0.58, 1) rather than
> cubic-bezier(0.0, 0.0, 0.58, 1.0).
> 
> In any case we should fix the spec to be consistent.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> -- 
> Alexis Menard
> 
> Intel Semiconductores do Brasil Ltda.
> Ave Dr. Chucri Zaidan, 940, Brooklin, 10 Andar
> 04583-904 São Paulo, SP
> Brazil
> 
> This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
> the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
> by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
> recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
>

Received on Tuesday, 8 January 2013 20:41:26 UTC