- From: Stephen McGruer via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2019 00:28:59 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> Just checking, was that an intent-to-implement? Intent-to-ship, but for the *CSSPseudoElement* interface, not for `getAnimations()` or any animations stuff. It's a bit annoying, but we have an internal technical reason that makes it tricky to implement the CSSPseudoElement IDL behind a flag. We could still do it, but if everyone is on board with (a) shipping CSSPseudoElement and (b) shipping Web Animations v1 at some point (soon? soon...!) it seems easier to just ship the CSSPseudoElement interface. ... actually, now that I write that it seems really weird to ship the CSSPseudoElement interface without shipping any way to get to it. So maybe I'll just try to work around the problem and send an intent-to-implement instead... TBD. :D > I'd like to talk about the behavior of CSS animations/transitions before shipping getAnimations(). Is there something particular you have in mind? @flackr looked at this recently-ish and at the time he felt the story there seemed ok I believe. > (Also, I'm curious about your experience with the replacing behavior.) @kevers-google is working on this atm, I believe its going well but that's at a very high level and we can discuss more at the next telcon :) -- GitHub Notification of comment by stephenmcgruer Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4301#issuecomment-536357379 using your GitHub account
Received on Monday, 30 September 2019 00:29:01 UTC