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

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

From: Aryeh Gregor <ayg@aryeh.name>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 13:15:06 -0500
Message-ID: <CAKA+AxkxXDystV1wdM5=8MHLQ=WjaALnPQez5=qFoKeKU5N3Rg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Øyvind Stenhaug <oyvinds@opera.com>
Cc: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, public-css-testsuite@w3.org
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Øyvind Stenhaug <oyvinds@opera.com> wrote:
> 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, of course the final tests would have to use only unprefixed
versions for everything.  The tests I'm working on (for transforms as
well as transitions/animations) feature-detect the right prefix and
use that, but of course that's only for test development.

> 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)

We could put them in a separate file and call them "CSS animations +
requestAnimationFrame tests" or something.
Received on Thursday, 16 February 2012 18:16:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:13:24 UTC