- From: Aryeh Gregor <ayg@aryeh.name>
- Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 11:36:21 -0500
- To: Øyvind Stenhaug <oyvinds@opera.com>
- Cc: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, public-css-testsuite@w3.org
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Øyvind Stenhaug <oyvinds@opera.com> wrote: > Not yet. I'll do what I can to get them shared as soon as possible. Great -- thanks! > Right. I meant that if prefixes are used, it's proprietary, strictly > speaking. And if they are not, then the tests would be dependent on getting > the other spec stable enough that prefixes can be dropped. The term used by CSS 2.1 is "vendor-specific", not "proprietary". If you're going to call requestAnimationFrame proprietary because it's prefixed, then so are transitions and animations, since they're still prefixed too -- right? > Yes, which seems a bit unfortunate. We can have a number of different types of tests. A UA that doesn't implement requestAnimationFrame can still be tested on events, timeouts, etc.
Received on Wednesday, 15 February 2012 16:37:11 UTC