- From: Vincent Hardy <vhardy@adobe.com>
- Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 08:03:09 -0700
- To: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
- CC: Patrick Dengler <patd@microsoft.com>, Brian Birtles <birtles@gmail.com>, David Dailey <ddailey@zoominternet.net>, "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>, "'www-svg'" <www-svg@w3.org>
Hi Cameron, On 8/3/11 10:09 PM, "Cameron McCormack" <cam@mcc.id.au> wrote: >On 4/08/11 3:06 AM, Vincent Hardy wrote: >> I also thought we had resolved, during the FX meeting last week, to work >> on requirements first. However, looking at the minutes log, I cannot >> find any RESOLUTION or ACTION recorded on that. >> >> http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/fx/20110726 >> >> It seems that the log is truncated at midnight, and I do not see the >> following part at: >> >> http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/fx/20110727 > >Looking at http://www.w3.org/2011/07/26-fx-irc, the conversation ended >with Dean taking an action to write up use cases and a list of features >to be added to CSS Animation. Thanks for digging out the right log :-) > >I suppose if we get agreement on that, then we can see what the >difference in functionality between SVG and (extended) CSS Animations >is, which will help us determine which of the three broad directions >Brian outlined we should head towards. Since we have an action (ACTION-48 - Write up use-cases and priority list of features to be added to css animations [on Dean Jackson - due 2011-08-02]), I think that means we had agreement during the meeting on that direction. Cheers, Vincent
Received on Thursday, 4 August 2011 15:05:30 UTC