- From: Aryeh Gregor <ayg@aryeh.name>
- Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 13:15:06 -0500
- To: Øyvind Stenhaug <oyvinds@opera.com>
- Cc: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, public-css-testsuite@w3.org
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Øyvind Stenhaug <oyvinds@opera.com> wrote: > Yes. The W3C testsuites will use the standard(-to-be) syntax of transitions > and animations, not the prefixed ones -- right? > > And OK, fair enough on the wording: I think it would be unfortunate if the > W3C testsuites were to allow or depend on vendor-specific syntaxes (unless > we actually have to put those syntaxes into the specification because the > web has become dependent on them... well, it would be unfortunate if that > point is reached, too). Yes, of course the final tests would have to use only unprefixed versions for everything. The tests I'm working on (for transforms as well as transitions/animations) feature-detect the right prefix and use that, but of course that's only for test development. > Sorry, I was in a hurry when I wrote the reply. I misread the "wouldn't" as > "would" in "UAs that don't support it wouldn't be deemed to not support > transitions/animations" (and "deemed" as in deemed by any random person > looking at the test results, if the tests were to fail without > requestAnimationFrame support) We could put them in a separate file and call them "CSS animations + requestAnimationFrame tests" or something.
Received on Thursday, 16 February 2012 18:16:48 UTC