- From: Sylvain Galineau <galineau@adobe.com>
- Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2014 00:08:17 +0000
- To: Lea Verou <lea@verou.me>
- CC: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "<www-style@w3.org>" <www-style@w3.org>
On Aug 10, 2014, at 4:51 PM, Lea Verou <lea@verou.me> wrote: > On Aug 11, 2014, at 02:09, Sylvain Galineau <galineau@adobe.com> wrote: >> Unless there are good examples to show why it's harmful to do this in transitions I think we should reconsider the scoping of this resolution to css-animations. > > Backwards compatibility is the main reason against it IIRC. Too many authors are using `all` implicitly, > so if `all` literally includes all properties, many transitions in existing websites will break. > Though perhaps we could define a new keyword that does that, like yes-all-properties-imeanit :P > Yes, if it is common to not define transition-property and rely on its initial value of 'all' then this could cause some awkward surprises. We'd have to redefine 'all' to mean 'all properties with interpolable values' which does sound awkward. At the same time, if animating all values is a good thing for animations it also seems awkward to arbitrarily prevent it in transitions. Or maybe animations are the fallback in this case?
Received on Monday, 11 August 2014 00:09:19 UTC