W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-fx@w3.org > April to June 2012

Re: [css3-transforms] ... to-animation

From: Brian Birtles <birtles@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2012 10:03:40 +0900
Message-ID: <4FCD5AEC.8090208@gmail.com>
To: public-fx@w3.org
(2012/06/05 0:04), Dirk Schulze wrote:
> I somehow agree. It needs to be defined what the underlying value is,
> then we can allow to-animation [1]. The problem that I see, is that
> the underlying value can be animated as well. Therefore the addition
> on transform functions can cause a performance impact, since in a lot
> of cases the decomposing of the underlying value must be done on
> every animation step.

That's the case for a lot of other types too. This doesn't make things
any harder.

>> Minor problem one has to face (as an author) with this: If a lower
>> priority animation is ended before the end of the to-animation,
>> and fill of this is not freeze, a new underlying value may appear,
>> that has another type. In this situation of course the viewer has
>> to reconsider, whether rule 1 or 2 has to be used. But typically
>> this is not really a big additional problem, because typically this
>> end without freeze will result anyway in a discontinuity and the
>> author will not get a smooth change anyway.
> But might be for the implementation; performance wise. W might need
> feedback of implementers here. It makes no sense to allow
> to-animations when no one can use them.

I don't see any problem here from an implementation point of view.

Best regards,

Brian Birtles
Received on Tuesday, 5 June 2012 01:04:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 5 June 2012 01:04:16 GMT