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: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 14:08:46 +0100
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDD-f=g8eB2vo0BUOg0dvf1v5OYqouRsgCLtd6RboCYpAw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Shane Stephens <shans@google.com>
Cc: Brian Birtles <bbirtles@mozilla.com>, "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 11:15 PM, Shane Stephens <shans@google.com> wrote:
> Thanks for your response and explanation.
>
> It's clear that the two should sit at separate cascade levels, to clarify
> which wins in the case of an overlap. But it still isn't clear to me that
> the cascade levels should be non-adjacent.
>
> Is there a strong desire for transitions to sit as high in the cascade as
> possible? What does it buy us? Would it be acceptable to put transitions
> directly above animations, and below the user stylesheet?

Basically, if transitions are directly above animations, then it's
*impossible* to transition to/between user!important or UA!important
rules (and maybe an author!important too, depending on the exact
placement).  That just kinda sucks.  "Technical purity" of having a
single override level should probably be below the ability cleanly and
easily author things that transition like normal, for authors and
users.


> The problem we are anticipating in Web Animations is that it will be
> significantly more difficult to implement CSS Transitions and Animations
> using Web Animations components if the contributions of these two types of
> animation end up being influenced differently by user styles. Ideally we
> would like to see all of CSS Transitions, CSS Animations and SVG Animations
> acting in a unified manner on a web document to produce animated content.
>
> Obviously if there are strong reasons for this difference then we just need
> to cope, but absent a strong reason I think the desire within the FXTF to
> unify SVG Animations with CSS Transitions and Animations forms a reasonably
> strong reason to keep the cascade levels adjacent.

I'm not sure why, if it's okay to have distinct cascade levels, it's
hard to have the cascade levels be non-adjacent.

~TJ
Received on Thursday, 1 November 2012 13:09:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 1 November 2012 13:09:33 GMT