- From: Sylvain Galineau <galineau@adobe.com>
- Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2014 16:06:17 +0000
- To: "peter.linss@hp.com" <peter.linss@hp.com>
- CC: Brian Birtles <bbirtles@mozilla.com>, "<www-style@w3.org>" <www-style@w3.org>, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>
On Jul 9, 2014, at 8:33 AM, Sylvain Galineau <galineau@adobe.com> wrote: > > On Jul 8, 2014, at 6:22 PM, Peter Linss <peter.linss@hp.com> wrote: > >> >> On Jul 8, 2014, at 5:20 PM, Brian Birtles <bbirtles@mozilla.com> wrote: >> >>> On 2014/07/08 7:43, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >>>> On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 10:18 PM, Brian Birtles <bbirtles@mozilla.com> wrote: >>>>> (b) seems simplest to me. What do you think Tab? >>>> >>>> Yeah, on further thought, (b) is probably fine. There's a >>>> sufficiently justifiable asymmetry there between the "nothing, then >>>> something" and "something, then something else" that I'm okay with it. >>> >>> Ok, I've just now updated Firefox to do (b). >>> >>> It would be nice to get the spec to reflect this but I understand there is a shortage of editorial resources for CSS Animations work. I'm happy to send PRs if there's a github mirror of the spec repository. >> >> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts >> >> But it's up to the individual spec authors if they pay attention to PRs... >> >> Given that our github spec repo is read-only at the moment (I'm planning on making it read-write soon), I'm happy to assist anyone landing a PR (it's a straightforward process but requires some tooling setup). >> > There is one editor at the moment: me. > > FWIW, b) does make the most sense to me and there is already a bug about this. I wouldn't expect an animation's timer to run until the animation name can be resolve to some kind of definition. Is that what we're agreeing on? Also, I believe it has been widely agreed that snapshotting is no longer required. Still needs to be edited though.
Received on Wednesday, 9 July 2014 16:07:07 UTC