Unfortunately It's either CSS or CSS for me, so will do some fixed height trick.
------------------ Kuzeko On 28 August 2013 04:58, Karl DeSaulniers <k...@designdrumm.com> wrote: > You don't. You use JavaScript or even better. jQuery. IMO. > > jQuery would handle what your wanting very nicely. I for one avoid > animations with CSS. But that is just me I assume. > > Best, > Karl > > Sent from losPhone > > On Aug 27, 2013, at 4:38 PM, Kuzeko Web Design - Matteo Lissandrini < > w...@kuzeko.com> wrote: > > > Ok, thank you. > > But then, the question becomes: how do I accomplish that effect with only > > CSS? > > I.e., text of different length scrolling vertically from end to end > without > > hardcoding px or a predefined height?? > > > > Thanks > > > > > > ------------------ > > > > Kuzeko > > > > > > > > On 27 August 2013 22:30, Eric <e...@minerbits.com> wrote: > > > >> ** > >> It's more of a misbehavior than a bug. The Moz engineering team probably > >> just decided not to go back and change it after the spec was finalized. > >> It's sort of like how they're the only UA that doesn't support display: > >> run-in. Back int he '90s a bug was opened on it and loads of note by > senior > >> engineers stating why they should support (one saying that it's > >> embarrassing for FF to be the only UA not to support) it's still sitting > >> there unassigned over 15yrs later. That's just how engineering teams > work. > >> > >> I would suggest that you don't use percentage as a unit of measure in > CSS > >> animations. > >> > >> Eric > >> > >> > >>> On August 27, 2013 at 8:09 AM Kuzeko Web Design - Matteo Lissandrini < > >> w...@kuzeko.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> Thank you all for the answers, but now I am really confused. > >>> So is this supposed to do so or is a bug? > >>> > >>> Can you fork my example and show me how to have this work properly if > >> this > >>> is possible? > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ------------------ > >>> > >>> Kuzeko > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On 27 August 2013 08:28, Philippe Wittenbergh <e...@l-c-n.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> > >>>> Le 27 août 2013 à 14:52, "L. David Baron" <dba...@dbaron.org> a écrit > >> : > >>>> > >>>>> Many of the other references in the CSS spec to things that are > >>>>> based on the height of the containing block explicitly say that if > >>>>> the containing block's computed height is 'auto', then the > >>>>> percentage is as well. See, for example: > >>>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/visudet.html#the-height-property > >>>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/visudet.html#min-max-heights > >>>>> > >>>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visuren.html#position-props , however, > >>>>> does not say that, and you shouldn't infer it from the same thing > >>>>> being stated elsewhere. > >>>>> > >>>>> The working group explicitly decided *not* to change this in 2009; > >>>>> see: > >>>>> http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-134 > >>>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009Jun/0056.html > >>>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009Aug/0092.html > >>>> > >>>> Oh :-(. I had forgotten about that resolution (which I find > >> inconsistent > >>>> with the way height and min-max-height work). Thing is, no browser > >> released > >>>> as of today, including Presto-Opera, implement this, even for a very > >> basic > >>>> test case [*] (I can't test IE 11beta, though). But Presto based Opera > >> and > >>>> Gecko manage to animated it. Bizarre. > >>>> > >>>> [*] http://dev.l-c-n.com/_temp/top-perc.html > >>>> > >>>> Gecko bug report is here: > >>>> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=260348 > >>>> > >>>> Philippe > >>>> -- > >>>> Philippe Wittenbergh > >>>> http://l-c-n.com > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> ______________________________________________________________________ > >>>> css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org] > >>>> http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d > >>>> List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ > >>>> List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html > >>>> Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/ > >>> ______________________________________________________________________ > >>> css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org] > >>> http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d > >>> List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ > >>> List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html > >>> Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/ > > ______________________________________________________________________ > > css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org] > > http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d > > List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ > > List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html > > Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/ > ______________________________________________________________________ > css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org] > http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d > List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ > List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html > Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/ > ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
