- From: Adam Argyle via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2019 17:19:56 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
was thinking last night that a shift in the proposal syntax could help shift some of the effort and expectation from the feature.
current proposal syntax:
```css
.animated-layer {
motion-rendering: blur;
motion-shutter-angle: 180deg;
}
```
updated proposal syntax i was thinking about last night:
```css
.animated-layer {
transform-filter: motion-blur(180deg);
/* or maybe? */
transition-filter: motion-blur(180deg);
}
```
what i like is that ambiguity is gone due to more specific syntax: `transform-filter` sounds specific to transform properties (which i still feel is the best place to attack/solve first). folks wont be curious why theres no motion blur on their left/top/height/width/padding etc animations. this updated proposal limits the scope of the feature, and that's what i'm curious about, is **what would it exclude that was included in the more general syntax?**
--
GitHub Notification of comment by argyleink
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/3837#issuecomment-501798388 using your GitHub account
Received on Thursday, 13 June 2019 17:19:58 UTC