- From: Dean Jackson <dino@apple.com>
- Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 06:21:51 +1000
- To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Cc: "www-style@w3.org list" <www-style@w3.org>
On 22/09/2011, at 6:15 AM, L. David Baron wrote: >> >> I think I should remove the entire section on animatable properties. We'll be >> in a flux state until other CSS specs add the animatable description for each >> of their properties, but I don't think that's so bad. And definitely better >> than having an erroneous spec. > > I think it would be better for the transitions spec to define the > animation rules for all properties ahead of it (i.e., everything in > 2.1 or in css3 drafts ahead of it) and we should add "Animatable:" > lines to the property template for everything behind or roughly even > with transitions. > > The "Animatable" line should link to *how* the property is > animatable, so the definitions in the transitions spec should be > easy to link to, but some modules will give their own definitions as > well. (In other words, it should probably say things like "no", "as > <a>integer</a>", "as <a>shadow</a>", etc.) Good suggestion. I'm not sure when I'll get to doing this, so if one of the other editors volunteers… many thanks. Dean
Received on Wednesday, 21 September 2011 20:22:46 UTC