Re: when do transitions occur?

On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 8:58 AM, Øyvind Stenhaug <oyvinds@opera.com> wrote:
> 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."

Yeah, that's obviously incomplete and unusable, as it says nothing
about the size/orientation arguments of the gradients.

~TJ

Received on Thursday, 15 September 2011 16:00:11 UTC