Bug 16024 - should some/all of the prose on transitioning gradients be deferred?
Summary: should some/all of the prose on transitioning gradients be deferred?
Status: NEW
Alias: None
Product: CSS
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Transitions (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All All
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Dean Jackson
QA Contact: public-css-bugzilla
URL:
Whiteboard: [needsresolution][easy]
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2012-02-18 19:32 UTC by L. David Baron (Mozilla)
Modified: 2012-02-29 18:58 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

See Also:


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description L. David Baron (Mozilla) 2012-02-18 19:32:59 UTC
css3-transitions currently has a bit of prose on transitioning gradients.  I'm not sure there's a whole lot of consensus around it; there have been various suggestions on how to improve it, and I'm not aware of implementations (see, e.g., Simon's bug 14612 comment 1 regarding WebKit).

I think we should consider deferring rules for animation of gradients to css4-images.
Comment 1 Simon Fraser 2012-02-18 21:03:24 UTC
Maybe css4-images should handle it. I agree that it should be deferred.
Comment 2 Simon Fraser 2012-02-29 17:19:57 UTC
Is this a dup of bug 14612?
Comment 3 L. David Baron (Mozilla) 2012-02-29 18:58:14 UTC
No; that's proposing we fix the rules for interpolating gradients; this is proposing we remove what's already in the spec.

(In other cases, the discussion on postponing an issue was about a feature request for something not in the spec; this is different because we need to remove something that currently is in the spec, so it's not simply postponing the issue because something needs to be removed.)