- From: Guillaume via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2023 10:17:58 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
cdoublev has just created a new issue for https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts: == [css-cascade] Define animation type of `all` as `not animatable` == Some shorthands that have non-animatable sub-properties are defined with `not animatable` as the value of the field *Animation Type* in their definition table, instead of `see individual properties`: - `not animatable`: [`animation`](https://drafts.csswg.org/css-animations-1/#propdef-animation), [`transition`](https://drafts.csswg.org/css-transitions-1/#propdef-transition), [`scroll-timeline`](https://drafts.csswg.org/scroll-animations-1/#propdef-scroll-timeline) - `see individual properties`: [`all`](https://drafts.csswg.org/css-cascade-5/#propdef-all), [`container`](https://drafts.csswg.org/css-contain-3/#propdef-container), [`view-timeline`](https://drafts.csswg.org/scroll-animations-1/#propdef-view-timeline) `all` and `view-timeline` seem to be the only shorthands that have both animatable and non-animatable properties. I assume that `all` is not animatable because Chrome/FF do not seem to animate it. Also, I think it would be non-trivial to filter declarations of their non-animatable properties during their expansion. In practice, a shorthand animation type can be resolved from the animation types of its sub-properties, but it would be clearer to define it as `non animatable`. Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/8414 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Wednesday, 8 February 2023 10:18:00 UTC