W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-fx@w3.org > July to September 2011

Re: Dropping angle-bracket syntax for animation

From: Vincent Hardy <vhardy@adobe.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 08:03:09 -0700
To: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
CC: Patrick Dengler <patd@microsoft.com>, Brian Birtles <birtles@gmail.com>, David Dailey <ddailey@zoominternet.net>, "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>, "'www-svg'" <www-svg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CA600259.EA82%vhardy@adobe.com>
Hi Cameron,

On 8/3/11 10:09 PM, "Cameron McCormack" <cam@mcc.id.au> wrote:

>On 4/08/11 3:06 AM, Vincent Hardy wrote:
>> I also thought we had resolved, during the FX meeting last week, to work
>> on requirements first. However, looking at the minutes log, I cannot
>> find any RESOLUTION or ACTION recorded on that.
>> http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/fx/20110726
>> It seems that the log is truncated at midnight, and I do not see the
>> following part at:
>> http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/fx/20110727
>Looking at http://www.w3.org/2011/07/26-fx-irc, the conversation ended
>with Dean taking an action to write up use cases and a list of features
>to be added to CSS Animation.

Thanks for digging out the right log :-)

>I suppose if we get agreement on that, then we can see what the
>difference in functionality between SVG and (extended) CSS Animations
>is, which will help us determine which of the three broad directions
>Brian outlined we should head towards.

Since we have an action (ACTION-48 - Write up use-cases and priority list
of features to be added to css animations [on Dean Jackson - due
2011-08-02]), I think that means we had agreement during the meeting on
that direction.

Received on Thursday, 4 August 2011 15:05:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 22 June 2015 03:33:46 UTC