- From: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
- Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 07:02:52 +0100
- To: www-style@w3.org
David Hyatt wrote: > Here is a list from Apple regarding what we would like to see within the > scope of the CSS WG's charter. Here's my personal (I insist: personal) take about your proposals, from a pure CSS p.o.v.: 1. transformations change nothing in the behaviour or semantics of an element, it's strictly about rendering effects : in scope 2. transitions are even deeper than rendering, they affect the way a property value is applied to an element : in scope 3. animations are just a way to apply a set or continuum of various property values to an element : in scope 4. CSS Media Queries extensions ; of course in scope That said, I am not saying anything about the solutions you chose, I am just saying I have the personal feeling it's perfectly normal to ask the CSS WG to deal with your proposals. As a web author, I want these features and I want them as simple to edit as possible. As a standards guy, I want to make sure (a) we're not reinventing the wheel (b) we're not going to neglect the HUGE experience other W3C WGs have on these topics [1] (c) it's intuitive and simple enough so web authors can edit w/o having to hire an expert to understand the spec. Point (c) is in my humble opinion already ok. [1] for instance on transition collisions... </Daniel> -- Co-Chair, W3C CSS Working Group
Received on Friday, 28 March 2008 06:03:26 UTC