- From: Kelly Miller <lightsolphoenix@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 08:00:42 -0400
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- CC: Laurens Holst <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl>, www-style@w3.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: | * Laurens Holst wrote: |> CSS should have transition effects. Currently, when I want to animate |> something I basically have to let script take over part of the styling |> layer, and specify certain styling properties in the scripting layer. | | We already have declarative means for animations and transition effects | in SMIL and proposals like http://www.w3.org/Submission/xml-timing/ and | http://www.mozilla.org/projects/xbl/xbl2.html that cover related issues. | It would be best if you could explain in detail why these do not provide | adequate syntax or semantics and why a CSS-based solution would, how the | proposed solution interacts with those other facilities, why it would be | sufficient to provide to functionality provided by your proposal and | other problems (e.g., runtime synchronization of media embedded via CSS) | do not need to be addressed, and how important you think this problem is | relative to problems http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/current-work the CSS WG | is already trying to tackle. IMO, the reasoning is the same as that used to explain why CSS should have simple gradient syntax; for simple animations, SMIL/XBL is overkill. I was going to suggest something like this as an overhaul of that blasted blink property, which by this point just about everyone knows is fundamentally flawed (and very annoying), and really needs to be looked at. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEaG1pvCLXx0V8XHQRAj+8AKCMC0QckSOL8Tns4/XIzr6vDFhkjwCdFPZ/ pcujozlUgNy4D9eBlMyiENg= =MZcO -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Sunday, 14 May 2006 16:35:42 UTC