W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2011

RE: [css3-animations] non-animatable values of animatable properties

From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 15:42:48 +0000
To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>
CC: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Dean Jackson <dino@apple.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <045A765940533D4CA4933A4A7E32597E2AC234A5@TK5EX14MBXC120.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>

[David Baron:]
> On Saturday 2011-04-16 08:24 -0700, L. David Baron wrote:
> > One more question about this behavior (which I don't see the spec
> > answering):  when some of the adjacent pairs of values of a property
> > aren't animatable, what happens?  All the spec says about
> > non-animatable situations is:
> >   # Properties that are unable to be animated are ignored in these
> >   # rules, with the exception of animation-timing-function', the
> >   # behavior of which is described below.
> >   -- http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-animations/#keyframes
> 
> The behavior I implemented for now is that if some of the pairs of values
> for a property aren't animatable, I drop the property from the animation
> (even if some of the pairs of values are animatable).
> This seemed like the most reasonable behavior I could come up with, at
> least until we have animation of non-interpolable properties.
> 
> (In this model, dropping a single segment feels much wierder since each
> property has its own set of segments, though I suppose it's an
> option.)

I was hoping you could provide a quick testcase so I'm sure I understand
what you mean by adjacent pairs of values of a property in this case ?
Thanks !
Received on Friday, 22 April 2011 15:43:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:39 GMT