- From: Lea Verou <lea@verou.me>
- Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2014 03:17:26 +0300
- To: Sylvain Galineau <galineau@adobe.com>
- Cc: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Aug 11, 2014, at 03:08, Sylvain Galineau <galineau@adobe.com> wrote: > Yes, if it is common to not define transition-property and rely on its initial value of 'all' then this could cause some awkward surprises. It’s *extremely* common. I’d say it’s the most common way transitions are used. > We'd have to redefine 'all' to mean 'all properties with interpolable values' which does sound awkward. > > At the same time, if animating all values is a good thing for animations it also seems awkward to arbitrarily prevent it in transitions. Or maybe animations are the fallback in this case? IMO it would be very useful to allow this in transitions as well and would open up some very interesting possibilities that require hacks today. One solution that minimizes (but doesn’t completely eliminate) the backwards compat consequences would be to make `all` mean all properties, but redefine the initial value to a new keyword that means "all interpolatable properties". Since most authors use `all` implicitly, that would prevent most cases of breakage. ~Lea
Received on Monday, 11 August 2014 00:18:00 UTC