Re: when do transitions occur?

On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 17:38:21 +0200, Tab Atkins Jr. <>  

> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 8:32 AM, L. David Baron <>  
> wrote:
>> On Thursday 2011-09-15 08:12 -0700, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>>> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 2:41 AM, Brian Manthos  
>>> <> wrote:
>>> > Regarding David's comment about background-image not being  
>>> animatable, this WD suggests it is somewhat supported...
>>> >
>>> > #       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