W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-fx@w3.org > October to December 2012

Re: [web-anim] Web animations minutes, 31 October 2012

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 11:56:49 +0100
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDCYgb+X67YzwQgQjeqRdH9pfreqWoiGLx4p-o_BWYeiHQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brian Birtles <bbirtles@mozilla.com>
Cc: "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 6:33 AM, Brian Birtles <bbirtles@mozilla.com> wrote:
> We don't currently distinguish between Animations and Transitions in Web
> Animations.
>
> Action: Shane to discover why DB thinks this is important

Several reasons.

One, transitions are considered less disruptive than animations.  When
people set values in a user stylesheet, it seems okay to still run
transitions by default (people can always shut them down with a
user-level "transition: none !important;" rule) - they're still
respecting the user's desire, just over a non-instantaneous interval -
so it's okay for magic-transition rules to sit at a higher cascade
level than user!important rules.

On the other hand, animations are more disruptive by default.  There
is no connection between the animation and the user's own preferences
- if they set "color: black !important;" in their user stylesheet, an
animation can still make the text pulse red and yellow.  Thus, having
user preferences override magic-animation rules by default seems like
a good idea.  This means that magic-animation rules should either sit
between author and author!important rules, or between author!important
and user!important rules.  It doesn't matter too much which of those
two are chosen - FF happens to take the first one.

Two, having the two sit at separate cascade levels (even if they're
adjacent) seems good to help resolve questions of "what wins when an
element has both a transition and an animation" in an understandable
manner.

~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 31 October 2012 10:57:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 31 October 2012 10:57:36 GMT