- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2011 09:27:12 -0700
- To: Lea Verou <leaverou@gmail.com>
- Cc: Øyvind Stenhaug <oyvinds@opera.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 2:34 AM, Lea Verou <leaverou@gmail.com> wrote: > Then maybe that needs to change, as it breaks author expectations. If > somebody put a non-animatable value in a keyframe, it's almost certain they > didn't intend it to be ignored. > Those values could be "animated" via a discrete step, either in the > beginning, middle or end of the time between those two keyframes. > History has proved that more relaxed syntax is always better than making > things invalid or ignored. Yes, we absolutely intend that all values should be transitionable, with the ones that don't have explicit rules just going by a single-step transition. It just hasn't been done yet. ~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 1 November 2011 16:28:04 UTC