- From: Brian Birtles <bbirtles@mozilla.com>
- Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 16:24:28 +0900
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: Dean Jackson <dino@apple.com>, "<www-style@w3.org>" <www-style@w3.org>
On 2014/09/10 16:13, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 7:46 PM, Brian Birtles <bbirtles@mozilla.com> wrote:
>> @keyframes a {
>> to {
>> transform: scale(2);
>> filter: blur(5px);
>> }
>> }
>> @keyframes b {
>> to {
>> transform: scale(3);
>> filter: blur(10px);
>> }
>> }
>>
>> Using the following:
>>
>> animation: a 5s forwards, b 5s forwards add;
>>
>> You'd end with a computed style of:
>>
>> transform: scale(2) scale(3);
>> filter: blur(5px) blur(10px);
>>
>> But with the following:
>>
>> animation: a 5s forwards, b 5s forwards accumulate;
>>
>> You'd end with a computed style of:
>>
>> transform: scale(5);
>> filter: blur(15px);
>
> scale(6), certainly? (Otherwise, scale(1) and scale(1) would
> accumulate into scale(2), which doesn't make any sense.)
Yeah, that's right. The current spec definition is wrong, it should
probably behave differently for scale.
Received on Wednesday, 10 September 2014 07:24:57 UTC