W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2017

Re: agenda+ Updating /TR of Transitions, now Timing is published

From: Brian Birtles <bbirtles@mozilla.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 09:31:55 +0900
Message-ID: <CAF-W_FRJizf2F_--NeM6uaXq2RtbC6EW-iga5hyi37nJQFHN1Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 8:35 AM, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org> wrote:
> Now that the FPWD of timing is published
>   https://www.w3.org/TR/2017/WD-css-timing-1-20170221/
> and given that it says:
> "This specification is based on the CSS Transitions specification edited by
> L. David Baron, Dean Jackson, David Hyatt, and Chris Marrin"
> then it seems Transitions should also be republished, no? It seems that the
> ED is ahead of the /TR version (dated 19 November 2013) but maybe the
> editors are in the midst of refactoring to take account of css-timing-1?

I've already updated CSS transitions, CSS animations, and Web
Animations to point to css-timing. However, they currently point to
the ED. Is that a problem?

> Agenda+ mainly so I have a clearer idea of the interdependence and
> timescales of those two.

I'm not aware of any issues in CSS Timing. Once we have a couple of
implementations of frames() and setup the testsuite (blocked on
migrating to wpt) there shouldn't be anything blocking its progression
along the standards track. In any case I don't anticipate it holding
up CR for either Transitions or Animations.

I am aware of (and am working on) a number of issues with Transitions
and Animations but, speaking for CSS Animations (I'm not an editor of
Transitions), I think we should just republish anyway.

(And sorry I can't join the telcon to discuss this, it being at 2am here.)

Best regards,

Received on Friday, 24 February 2017 00:32:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:09:06 UTC