- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 16:55:24 -0700
- To: Sylvain Galineau <galineau@adobe.com>
- Cc: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, "<www-style@w3.org>" <www-style@w3.org>, Lea Verou <leaverou@gmail.com>
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 4:40 PM, Sylvain Galineau <galineau@adobe.com> wrote: > On Jul 17, 2014, at 4:28 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 4:07 PM, Sylvain Galineau <galineau@adobe.com> wrote: >>> On Jul 16, 2014, at 2:08 PM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote: >>>> Tab proposed in this thread back in 2011 that the 0% and 100% >>>> keyframes be "fully applied", although I'm not quite sure what it >>>> means and I don't think I like the sound of it. >>> >>> Don't know what that means either. Hope we can discuss it on next week's telcon. >> >> IIRC, it was me basically saying that we should apply the 0%/100% >> keyframes as if they were normal style rules, with all the >> interactions between properties that implies, rather than as >> individual properties like they do today. It would avoid the problem >> noted here where, since 'border-style' is none in the static style, >> 'border-width' in the animation gets set to 0, even though >> 'border-style' is set to a non-none value in the same keyframe. > > OK, I agree with this principle though I'm not sure why that'd be limited > to the 0% and 100% frames? I'm sure I had some reason, but I'm not sure what it is now. If you figure it out, we can consider it, but otherwise just pretend I meant for it to always apply. ~TJ
Received on Thursday, 17 July 2014 23:56:10 UTC