- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 10:30:13 -0800
- To: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>
- Cc: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>, Leif Arne Storset <lstorset@opera.com>, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@adobe.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 10:27 AM, Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com> wrote: > On Nov 30, 2010, at 10:04 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >>> I'm not sure why "you can interpolate if they're the same function" is any better or worse than "you can interpolate if they have the same keyword there". But, whatever. >> >> Simon prefers the simplicity of the former, and I don't have any >> preference on the matter myself, so I'm going with his preference. > > I'm not too averse to slightly more complex rules for when things can be interpolated. The thing to bear in mind is that at some shiny point in the future, the specs should annotate each CSS property with information about whether they are animatable. If you cast yourself into the future and imagine writing the prose for this, simpler rules about when gradients interpolate will be easier to explain than more complex ones. Right. The section of Images which describes gradient interpolation shows off this sort of thing - I currently have just two rules describing whether or not a gradient is interpolable. ~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 30 November 2010 18:31:17 UTC