- From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 15:42:48 +0000
- To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>
- CC: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Dean Jackson <dino@apple.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
[David Baron:] > On Saturday 2011-04-16 08:24 -0700, L. David Baron wrote: > > One more question about this behavior (which I don't see the spec > > answering): when some of the adjacent pairs of values of a property > > aren't animatable, what happens? All the spec says about > > non-animatable situations is: > > # Properties that are unable to be animated are ignored in these > > # rules, with the exception of animation-timing-function', the > > # behavior of which is described below. > > -- http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-animations/#keyframes > > The behavior I implemented for now is that if some of the pairs of values > for a property aren't animatable, I drop the property from the animation > (even if some of the pairs of values are animatable). > This seemed like the most reasonable behavior I could come up with, at > least until we have animation of non-interpolable properties. > > (In this model, dropping a single segment feels much wierder since each > property has its own set of segments, though I suppose it's an > option.) I was hoping you could provide a quick testcase so I'm sure I understand what you mean by adjacent pairs of values of a property in this case ? Thanks !
Received on Friday, 22 April 2011 15:43:16 UTC