On Thursday 2011-09-15 08:38 -0700, Tab Atkins Jr. 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. At the time it was published, image values didn't define anything related to transitions, animations, or interpolation of values. The definition was simply the one under the "Animation of property types" section (6) of transitions. -David -- 𝄞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 𝄂 𝄢 Mozilla Corporation http://www.mozilla.com/ 𝄂Received on Thursday, 15 September 2011 16:57:51 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 23 January 2023 02:14:04 UTC