- From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 08:32:29 -0700
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>, Γyvind Stenhaug <oyvinds@opera.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Thursday 2011-09-15 08:12 -0700, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 2:41 AM, Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com> wrote: > > Regarding David's comment about background-image not being animatable, this WD suggests it is somewhat supported... > > http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-transitions/#properties-from-css- > > # background-image only gradients > > That's weird. I *had* a definition for gradient transitions in Images > 3, but I also had a definition for generic <image>s, and they were > kicked to level 4 at the same time. I dunno why Transitions would > reference only gradients. The TR-page draft is quite old; the reference to background-image being animatable at all has been dropped from the editor's draft for quite a while. -David -- π L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ π π’ Mozilla Corporation http://www.mozilla.com/ π
Received on Thursday, 15 September 2011 15:33:32 UTC