W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > December 2009

Re: [css3-transitions] rule for animation of 'visibility' is backwards

From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 21:50:25 -0800
To: David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <20091201055025.GA7110@pickering.dbaron.org>
On Monday 2009-11-30 14:15 -0600, David Hyatt wrote:
> This is definitely just a mistake in the spec.

Does the following text make sense instead:
  # visibility: interpolated via a discrete step.  Animations
  # between 'visible' and 'hidden' are interpolated so that all
  # intermediate values are 'visible'.  Animations involving 
  # 'collapse' cannot be interpolated.

Is that a reasonable way to handle 'collapse'?  Or is there a better
option?

-David

> On Nov 28, 2009, at 12:06 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
> 
> >http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-transitions/#animation-of-property-types-
> >says:
> > # visibility: interpolated via a discrete step. The interpolation
> > # happens in real number space between 0 and 1, where 1 is
> > # "visible" and all other values are "hidden".
> >
> >Based on
> >http://dbaron.org/css/test/2009/transitions/transition-visibility it
> >appears that what WebKit implements is that values between 0 and 1
> >are treated as 'visibile', which makes more sense to me.  (For
> >example, it means that you can animate 'opacity' and 'visibility' on
> >the same function and end up with an element that ignores mouse
> >events only when 'opacity' is '0'.)
> >
> >(Though see my previous message for other comments on this:
> >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009Nov/0328.html )

-- 
L. David Baron                                 http://dbaron.org/
Mozilla Corporation                       http://www.mozilla.com/
Received on Tuesday, 1 December 2009 05:51:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:22 GMT