- From: Brian Birtles <bbirtles@mozilla.com>
- Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 09:31:55 +0900
- 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, Brian
Received on Friday, 24 February 2017 00:32:28 UTC