On 22/09/2011, at 6:15 AM, L. David Baron wrote: >> >> 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.) Good suggestion. I'm not sure when I'll get to doing this, so if one of the other editors volunteers… many thanks. DeanReceived on Wednesday, 21 September 2011 20:22:46 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 23 January 2023 02:14:04 UTC