Re: Cascading Style Sheet Animations?

On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 4:24 AM, David Singer <singer@apple.com> wrote:

> At 22:06  +0000 3/03/09, Oscar Godson wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure if I even understand this or how this got put into the specs
>> of CSS. Animations are not styles in any way.
>>
>> I feel like this is going to be like <b>,<i>,<font> tags in HTML where
>> years later we are trying to correct the issue with separating the
>> presentation from the structure of the page. Why wouldn't there be an
>> animation language we could place in a <link/> tag and have the browser
>> render all animations in language made for animations.
>>
>
> I think this is very much debatable.  If, for example, my company logo is
> round, and when it can be, is shown as a 'spinning disc', but in print is
> stationary, I prefer that it is animated as a presentation issue on the web.
>  But it's valid unanimated.  This is presentational.


The spinning-ness isn't any more presentational than the actual logo
graphic, and we don't describe images in CSS. In your example the image
should just be SVG+SMIL or APNG. Disabling animation with static media is
just something you do for all animated formats, it doesn't mean animation
should be in CSS.

So I think that for spinning logos and other "movie" animations (e.g. Flash
animated ads), where the animation is really just part of the content, the
animation should be in the content, and SVG+SMIL seems to be an OK solution
there.

I'm not really sure what the intended use cases of CSS Animations are which
aren't in that class and aren't covered by CSS Transitions.

Rob
-- 
"He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are
healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his
own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all." [Isaiah
53:5-6]