W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > December 2013

Re: Proposal: will-animate property

From: Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 11:15:02 +1300
Message-ID: <CAOp6jLbSyR85QhpM9zNtazwFm-2Y+9rwigaPt-_m92WFWSHNXA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Benoit Girard <bgirard@mozilla.com>
Cc: Ali Juma <ajuma@chromium.org>, www-style <www-style@w3.org>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, Matt Woodrow <matt@mozilla.com>, Cameron McCormack <cmccormack@mozilla.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 11:12 AM, Benoit Girard <bgirard@mozilla.com> wrote:

> The problem with that approach is that when some browser adds new-property
>> and extends will-animate syntax to support new-property, and an author
>> writes "will-animate: transform, new-property", other browsers get no
>> will-animate at all.
> Can we simply require all identifiers (except all, inherit, initial,
> unset) to be parsed?

Yes, we proposed that. I'm talking about the problem with Ali's approach.

Jtehsauts  tshaei dS,o n" Wohfy  Mdaon  yhoaus  eanuttehrotraiitny  eovni
le atrhtohu gthot sf oirng iyvoeu rs ihnesa.r"t sS?o  Whhei csha iids  teoa
stiheer :p atroa lsyazye,d  'mYaonu,r  "sGients  uapr,e  tfaokreg iyvoeunr,
'm aotr  atnod  sgaoy ,h o'mGee.t"  uTph eann dt hwea lmka'n?  gBoutt  uIp
waanndt  wyeonut  thoo mken.o w
Received on Wednesday, 4 December 2013 22:15:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:37 UTC