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

Re: transitions vs. animations

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2010 23:52:41 -0700
Message-ID: <j2pdd0fbad1004052352wfcdadc25h17751e90ecfdabe9@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Cc: Chris Marrin <cmarrin@apple.com>, "www-style@w3.org list" <www-style@w3.org>
On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 11:07 PM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote:
> OK, actually, I didn't notice your comma and the location of your second '1s' (a side effect of reading mail quickly from a phone screen). I was thinking more like this:
>
> transition: left 1s play(bounce 1s infinite);

Ah, that makes more sense.

> So that as long as the 'left' property was within a transition, then the named animation inside "play()" would run as specified there. If you didn't include 'inifinite', then it would only bounce once per transition (or however many iterations you did specify instead). This seems like a very straightforward way to handle this.
>
> So, the components shown in the example above are:
> 'transition-property'
> 'transition-duration'
> 'transition-triggered-animation', where 'transition-triggered-animation' has a function value whose argument is a complete shorthand value of the animation property.

The last would need to be a space-separated list of animations, in
case you wanted to put several animations on the same transition.

> The duration of the transition (or maybe the combined length of the transition-delay  and transition-duration) would clip the duration and delay of the animation called within it.
>
> Of course, I would still want to be able to call animations in the existing way too (independent of transitions).

Oh yeah, of course.

~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 6 April 2010 06:53:34 GMT

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