- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 11:07:59 -0600
- To: Erik Dahlström <ed@opera.com>
- Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 2:54 AM, Erik Dahlström <ed@opera.com> wrote: > == 2.1 The ‘transition-property’ Property == > > What happens when there's a mismatch between the number of 'transition-property' values and the number of 'transition-duration' values? Hmm, I don't see it directly in that draft, but it has been brought up before that in the case of mismatched argument lengths, the shorter lists cycle. So the following: transition-property: opacity, color, left; transition-duration: 1s, 2s; is equivalent to: transition-property: opacity, color, left; transition-duration: 1s, 2s, 1s; > == 2.2 The ‘transition-duration’ Property == > > The property uses <time> values, which is different from <Clockvalue> used for specifying time in SVG[3] and SMIL. The grammar of <time> is undefined, though a guess is that it's from CSS 2.1 [2]. If that is the case, there are a few incompatibilies, e.g the ability to specify time in minutes and hours, or a full timevalue with semicolon separators. > > What's the rationale for not using the <Clockvalue> syntax? Is there any reason *to* use such things? In practice, transitions are always measured in milliseconds or small numbers of seconds. Note that the syntax is not *incompatible*, it's merely *incomplete*. Both <time> and <Clockvalue> use units of s and ms. Thus it can always be expanded to support the full range of <Clockvalue> if necessary without breaking anything. ~TJ
Received on Friday, 27 February 2009 17:09:43 UTC