W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-testsuite@w3.org > February 2012

Re: [css3-transitions] [css3-animations] API for testing transitions and animations

From: Øyvind Stenhaug <oyvinds@opera.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 18:56:25 +0100
To: "Aryeh Gregor" <ayg@aryeh.name>
Cc: "Boris Zbarsky" <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, public-css-testsuite@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.v9r9gb2cbunlto@oyvinds-desktop>
On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 17:36:21 +0100, Aryeh Gregor <ayg@aryeh.name> wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Øyvind Stenhaug <oyvinds@opera.com>  
> wrote:

>> Right. I meant that if prefixes are used, it's proprietary, strictly
>> speaking. And if they are not, then the tests would be dependent on  
>> getting
>> the other spec stable enough that prefixes can be dropped.
>
> The term used by CSS 2.1 is "vendor-specific", not "proprietary".  If
> you're going to call requestAnimationFrame proprietary because it's
> prefixed, then so are transitions and animations, since they're still
> prefixed too -- right?

Yes. The W3C testsuites will use the standard(-to-be) syntax of  
transitions and animations, not the prefixed ones -- right?

And OK, fair enough on the wording: I think it would be unfortunate if the  
W3C testsuites were to allow or depend on vendor-specific syntaxes (unless  
we actually have to put those syntaxes into the specification because the  
web has become dependent on them... well, it would be unfortunate if that  
point is reached, too).

>> Yes, which seems a bit unfortunate.
>
> We can have a number of different types of tests.  A UA that doesn't
> implement requestAnimationFrame can still be tested on events,
> timeouts, etc.

Sorry, I was in a hurry when I wrote the reply. I misread the "wouldn't"  
as "would" in "UAs that don't support it wouldn't be deemed to not support  
transitions/animations" (and "deemed" as in deemed by any random person  
looking at the test results, if the tests were to fail without  
requestAnimationFrame support)

-- 
Øyvind Stenhaug
Core Norway, Opera Software ASA
Received on Thursday, 16 February 2012 17:57:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 16 February 2012 17:57:06 GMT