W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2014

Re: [css-animations] Animation events for animation-duration: 0s

From: Sylvain Galineau <galineau@adobe.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 00:38:48 +0000
To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: "<www-style@w3.org>" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B3D25AB0-7CBA-449A-94A2-B3EC6438B7E3@adobe.com>

On Aug 28, 2014, at 5:30 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Sylvain Galineau <galineau@adobe.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 28, 2014, at 4:00 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Nope, no resolution.  I was just capturing the conflict and noting an
>>> issue on it so it wouldn't get missed.
>> Well, yeah, sort of; you 'captured' it by adding normative prose which I've just used to clarify another issue. Doh! So I pretty much missed it until now; next time, ping the editors over email/IRC/mailing list or better, mark your proposal as an issue/note?
> Note that the deleted text already contained the text "Also, animation
> events are still fired".  I just rephrased things a bit, and added an
> issue later in the spec to capture the contradiction, since there
> wasn't anything explicitly referencing the contradiction yet.
> The text there originated back from an edit by Dino in 2011:
> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/csswg/annotate/0e08c34f6238/css3-animations/Overview.src.html#l555

Oh, double-doh, so it's been borked forever. My bad. Carry on :)

I've opened a new Bugzilla entry for this.

>> Speaking of: the issue in Animations Event didn't get picked up by bikeshed for highlighting? I'd better mark all this as issue text but I've had random luck with 'Issue:'
> I'll look into it.

Cool. I added the old <p class="issue"> in there for now.

> ~TJ
Received on Friday, 29 August 2014 00:39:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:45 UTC