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

Re: transitions vs. animations

From: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2010 22:35:46 +0200
Message-ID: <19386.18850.394504.778362@gargle.gargle.HOWL>
To: Chris Marrin <cmarrin@apple.com>
Cc: "www-style@w3.org list" <www-style@w3.org>
Chris Marrin wrote:

 > > [example 14]
 > > 
 > >  @animation bounce {
 > >    from { top: 0; }
 > >    33%  { top: -20px; }
 > >    66%  { top: 20px; }
 > >    to   { top: 0; }
 > >  }

 > You're trying to come up with a single syntax that encompasses the
 > functionality of transitions and animations. But in doing so you
 > are introducing a confusing mix of specifying property values in
 > two places: in the style rule, and in the @animation rule.

I'm confused. The @animation thing is in the current specifications,
it's not something new that I'm proposing. If you're uncomfortable
with it, I'm the wrong adressee.

 > You're also introducing a functional notation simply to solve a
 > problem caused by putting to much information in the shorthand
 > property. I know you're trying to simplify things in doing all
 > this, but I think it only makes things more confusing and
 > complicated.

The proposal doesn't depend on a functional notnat -- for an example,
see this message:

  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Apr/0016.html

But, personally, I find this quite readable:

   on-entry: change(left, 1s), play(bounce, 1s);

Cheers,

-h&kon
              Håkon Wium Lie                          CTO °þe®ª
howcome@opera.com                  http://people.opera.com/howcome
Received on Monday, 5 April 2010 20:36:32 GMT

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