W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2010

Re: Are CSS animations a done deal?

From: sam <samuelp@iinet.net.au>
Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2010 20:17:44 +0800
Message-ID: <4BB9D4E8.9070309@iinet.net.au>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
CC: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, Lars Gunther <gunther@keryx.se>
On 04/05/2010 06:45 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 12:32:59 +0200, sam <samuelp@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>> On 04/05/2010 05:08 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>>> Personally I think moving away from specifying style information in 
>>> script to just specifying class name changes is actually an 
>>> improvement. That way the style information stays neatly separated 
>>> from the script and can be changed by designers who might not be 
>>> involved with the scripting layer of the site at all. That way it 
>>> can also be more easily overridden by end users.
>>
>> Agreed with that.  Being able to specify styles as declaration blocks 
>> in CSS as a class and reference/apply them in JS via className is 
>> good (but maybe class name is not the right mechanism to expose 
>> declaration blocks to JS enviroment). There is clear separation of  
>> function. But CSS duplicating functionality inherent in the DOM event 
>> model willy nilly is bad and should be avoided IMHO.  Maybe CSS 
>> should just duplicate all the DOM events exactly??
>
> CSS does not expose events. It exposes state. That is quite a 
> different thing.
>
>

I dont think there is so much difference between say :hover and 
mouseover, or :visited and click (except that click is more general), or 
state and event in general.
Received on Monday, 5 April 2010 12:18:19 GMT

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