- 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>
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