- From: Sylvain Galineau <galineau@adobe.com>
- Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 14:44:20 +0000
- To: "lists@novalistic.com" <lists@novalistic.com>
- CC: "<www-style@w3.org>" <www-style@w3.org>
On Mar 17, 2014, at 8:26 PM, Daniel Tan <lists@novalistic.com> wrote: > On 3/18/2014 1:50 AM, Sylvain Galineau wrote: >> >> Is the spec unclear, or are you less sure due to Chrome’s behavior? >> Given your two examples, the latter definitely seems buggy. >> > > It does come across as unexpected behavior depending on how the property is being used. I don't doubt that Chrome is tripping up here given my research, but I do know that many authors use Chrome's behavior as a reference due to its sheer popularity. The spec might be unclear to them. > > Not saying the spec should be changed just to accommodate specific browser behavior of course. I'm not sure how we would do that even if we wanted to. Chrome's behavior is a bit weird here. > But even once the bug is fixed, it might still be worth clarifying that, assuming correct syntax is used, having no supported or animatable properties in ‘transition-property’ should simply have an effect similar to ‘none’ (while not actually computing to ‘none’) rather than invalidate the declaration entirely for the purposes of the cascade. OK. So you just want the spec to explicitly say the UA only animates those properties which are known; thus, if they're all unknown nothing happens. Thanks. > > -- > Daniel Tan > NOVALISTIC > <http://NOVALISTIC.com>
Received on Tuesday, 18 March 2014 14:44:52 UTC