14609 2011-10-30 22:40:32 +0000 Interpolating 'other' value types should apply delay (and step timing functions if necessary) 2014-01-10 01:26:54 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified CSS Transitions unspecified PC All NEW [postpone to next level?] P2 normal --- 1 dino dino cmarrin dbaron eoconnor fantasai.bugs smfr sylvaing dave.null oldest_to_newest 59252 0 dino 2011-10-30 22:40:32 +0000 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Nov/0510.html 64210 1 dbaron 2012-02-17 01:21:19 +0000 I tend to think that at this point we should postpone this to the next level of the transitions spec. 64214 2 smfr 2012-02-17 01:33:06 +0000 Agreed. 64514 3 dbaron 2012-02-24 00:24:34 +0000 Though, actually, now that I think about it a little more, waiting to do this might lead to compatibility problems. 64587 4 sylvaing 2012-02-25 23:07:59 +0000 Also related to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009Nov/0328.html 64802 5 fantasai.bugs 2012-03-01 00:53:42 +0000 Wrt compatibility problems... could you make the default value of transition-property to be 'auto', and thus only transition interpolable properties by default? Then if you want non-interpolable properties to transition, you have mention them explicitly. 64803 6 sylvaing 2012-03-01 00:56:09 +0000 There is no 'auto' value today; since we want to push this to LC and beyond, shouldn't we avoid introducing new values and change initial values? 98241 7 dbaron 2014-01-10 01:26:54 +0000 I think in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012Nov/0261.html we decided to do this for CSS Animations but *not* for CSS transitions. Though the minutes aren't incredibly clear.