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

Re: [css3-transitions] Adding keyframes to transitions

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2010 09:59:05 -0700
Message-ID: <l2udd0fbad1004070959l27717291h7947b9b1782adfc1@mail.gmail.com>
To: Perry Smith <pedzsan@gmail.com>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 9:43 AM, Perry Smith <pedzsan@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Apr 7, 2010, at 11:34 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>
> .slider > .box {
>  left: 0;
>  transition: left 1s play(bounce 1s);
> }
>
> If I understand this right, both would happen at the same time.  We also
> need a syntax to have them play sequentially.  Perhaps a comma?

What's the use case for playing things sequentially?

I ask not because I don't think it's potentially useful, but to
hopefully capture a better idea of precisely what the desired behavior
is, so we can properly solve the use-case.  For example, if we want to
be able to chain animations arbitrarily, then this sort of thing would
be best addressed by doing that directly, and perhaps defining some
way to composite animations together sequentially.  On the other hand,
if the only useful thing we can find is to play a single animation
after the transition is done, then this can be done easily by putting
a delay on the animation equal to the duration of the transition.

> .slider > .box {
>  left: 0;
>  transition: left 1s, play(bounce 1s);
> }

That won't work - commas are used to separate multiple transitions.
The way you have it now would simply define a second, useless
transition (useless because the default transition-duration is 0,
which *I think* doesn't cause a transition).

~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 7 April 2010 16:59:54 GMT

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