- From: CSS Meeting Bot via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2022 23:58:22 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
The CSS Working Group just discussed `[css-cascade] Should 'revert' really treat animation origin as author origin?`, and agreed to the following: * `RESOLVED: Close no change` <details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary> <dael> Topic: [css-cascade] Should 'revert' really treat animation origin as author origin?<br> <dael> github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7083<br> <fantasai> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7083#issuecomment-1083631261<br> <dael> astearns: Suggested resolution at the end from TabAtkins<br> <dael> fantasai: We suggest for revert-layer no change. There are use cases and how set is most natural way. This issues is around revert. We suggest close no change b/c this is spec and impl. If people thik treat same as revert-layer that is reasonable behavior; main problem is it's a change<br> <dael> astearns: Prop: Close no change<br> <miriam> +1 close no change<br> <dael> fantasai: Yeah. unless someone feels significantly better to behave same as revert-layer<br> <dael> oriol: Initially I filed this b/c impl that way had some performance cost in WK and in Blink there was a comment saying it disabled optimization. In discussion of issue turned out changing wouldn't improve perf in Blink b/c disabled due to em units.<br> <dael> oriol: So I think changing would not improve perf so we can close no change<br> <dael> astearns: dbaron you commented. Is this okay?<br> <dbaron> no objections<br> <dael> astearns: objections to Close no change<br> <dael> RESOLVED: Close no change<br> </details> -- GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7083#issuecomment-1090938446 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Wednesday, 6 April 2022 23:58:23 UTC