Re: when do transitions occur?

On Thursday 2011-09-22 06:07 +1000, Dean Jackson wrote:
> On 16/09/2011, at 1:59 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> >>>> 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.
> I think I should remove the entire section on animatable properties. We'll be
> in a flux state until other CSS specs add the animatable description for each
> of their properties, but I don't think that's so bad. And definitely better
> than having an erroneous spec.

I think it would be better for the transitions spec to define the
animation rules for all properties ahead of it (i.e., everything in
2.1 or in css3 drafts ahead of it) and we should add "Animatable:"
lines to the property template for everything behind or roughly even
with transitions.

The "Animatable" line should link to *how* the property is
animatable, so the definitions in the transitions spec should be
easy to link to, but some modules will give their own definitions as
well.  (In other words, it should probably say things like "no", "as
<a>integer</a>", "as <a>shadow</a>", etc.)


π„ž   L. David Baron                  𝄂
𝄒   Mozilla                    𝄂

Received on Wednesday, 21 September 2011 20:16:22 UTC