- From: Øyvind Stenhaug <oyvinds@opera.com>
- Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 17:58:11 +0200
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 17:38:21 +0200, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. The Transitions spec itself makes some attempt at defining it (this part has not been dropped from the ED). "gradient: interpolated via the positions and colors of each stop. They must have the same type (radial or linear) and same number of stops in order to be animated." -- Øyvind Stenhaug Core Norway, Opera Software ASA
Received on Thursday, 15 September 2011 15:58:50 UTC