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

Re: transitions vs. animations

From: Perry Smith <pedzsan@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2010 09:00:34 -0500
Cc: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-Id: <6B7D1DFA-031B-4064-8B2C-42B5813D7313@gmail.com>
To: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>

On Apr 4, 2010, at 8:05 PM, Alex Mogilevsky wrote:

> One fundamental difference between transitions and animations is the  
> definition of start and end state. Generally, it is like this:
>
> 	(known state A) --> animation --> (no end state)
> 	(known state A) --> transition --> (known state B)

"An animation does not affect the computed value before the  
application of the animation, before the animation delay has expired,  
and after the end of the animation." [1]

So, after the animation, the state is very well known.  It is the  
original state A

On a slightly different topic but I think it might lead somewhere, I  
see this in the animation spec:

"If a 0% or "from" keyframe is not specified, then the user agent  
constructs a 0% keyframe using the computed values of the properties  
being animated. If a 100% or "to" keyframe is not specified, then the  
user agent constructs a 100% keyframe using the computed values of the  
properties being animated." [2]

There is an "issue" just after it asking about repeating animations.   
But, isn't the two uses of "computed value" a mistake?  They should be  
"intrinsic value".  And that would resolve the issue about repeating  
animations -- I think.

[1] http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-animations/#animations
[2] http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-animations/#keyframes

Perry
Received on Monday, 5 April 2010 14:01:10 GMT

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