On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 3:34 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 9:00 PM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote: > > On Thursday 2014-04-03 13:07 +1100, Xidorn Quan wrote: > >> As animation is still in > >> WD, > > W3C status has nothing to do with how likely it is we can change > something. (It's a pernicious misunderstanding that people who aren't > familiar with standards keep falling into. Unfortunately, people *in* > standards also often fall into it, when they spend too much time away > from implementations.) We can change something if it's not used too > much already; that's the sole determiner. > OK, that makes sense. >> though very dangerous, it is possible for us to announce that the first > >> none or identifier-like value will always be parsed into animation-name > >> instead of any keywords. > > > > I don't think it's possible to do that; too much Web content depends > > on keywords other than animation-name being first. > > Yes, I tried to push for this in Blink, as it appears to be the > literal reading of how to interpret the grammar, but we had to reject > it. We reaffirmed that our handling must be to take animation-name as > whatever is left over in the parse. > So how can we keep the compatibility? It seems to be nearly impossible now if new keyword could be introduced. - XidornReceived on Thursday, 3 April 2014 22:59:14 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 23 January 2023 02:14:39 UTC