- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 08:38:21 -0700
- To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Cc: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>, Øyvind Stenhaug <oyvinds@opera.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 8:32 AM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote: > 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. Right; it's just odd that it ever got into such a state. I'm not sure if Image Values was ever in an in-between state where I defined how to transition gradients but not general images. ~TJ
Received on Thursday, 15 September 2011 15:39:09 UTC