W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > June 2012

Re: [css3-background] Animatable: lines

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 23:40:25 -0700
Message-ID: <4FE41359.9010404@inkedblade.net>
To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
CC: www-style@w3.org
On 06/07/2012 04:23 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
> On Thursday 2012-06-07 16:10 -0700, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 4:06 PM, Sylvain Galineau<sylvaing@microsoft.com>  wrote:
>>> When css3-background says this for, say, background-size [1], what does it mean? Does it mean a keyword value at either end prevents any animation? Or does it mean animations from a keyword to any other keyword produces no animation?
>> The former.  Keywords just aren't animatable at all.
> I've been meaning to post revisions to what all the "Animatable:"
> lines in css3-background say, since "yes" isn't a good Animatable
> line.
> I think the Animatable: lines in css3-background should be changed
> as follows [...]

This seems like a lot of excess information. How is it not obvious that
when a property's value is a <color>, it animates like a <color>?
And when it's a <length>, it animates as a <length>?

Maybe it's merely commonsense obvious and not pedantically obvious;
in which case can we have the animations/transitions spec just define
it for everyone, rather than repeating ourselves for things that are
imho ridiculously obvious? I'd rather expand the Animatable line only
when there's actually something interesting and non-obvious going on.

Received on Friday, 22 June 2012 06:40:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:00 UTC