- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 11:35:35 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8802
Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution| |WONTFIX
--- Comment #1 from Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> 2010-02-13 11:35:35 ---
EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are
satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If
you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please
reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML
Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest
title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue
yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document:
http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html
Status: Rejected
Change Description: no spec change
Rationale: At the risk of missing the obvious, what's the use case? Is this
just to make drawing animated sprites easier? It seems like in most cases
animated sprites are going to have to jump around from animation to animation
and in practice are unlikely to just spin around a single set of frames... in
fact, it seems frankly easier just to write the 4 or 5 line function to do
animation manually, and just yank the frames from a larger sprite image where
the frames are all given in a long strip.
--
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Saturday, 13 February 2010 11:35:36 UTC