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

Re: transitions vs. animations

From: Perry Smith <pedzsan@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2010 13:45:50 -0500
Cc: "www-style@w3.org list" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-Id: <823F4A1C-258A-4E99-93A8-BF750AFEACA1@gmail.com>
To: Chris Marrin <cmarrin@apple.com>

On Apr 7, 2010, at 12:39 PM, Chris Marrin wrote:

>> I like the idea of supporting keyframes for transitions in some  
>> form. Right now transitions and animations have both a difference  
>> in purpose (state change animation vs. ambient animation) and a  
>> difference in functionality (simple bezier only, vs defined  
>> keyframes). This could lead to using animations solely for keyframe  
>> functionality when a transition may be better. I recognize that  
>> specifying keyframes for transitions is in some ways more  
>> challenging, but I think it is a challenge worth tackling at some  
>> point.
> Transition keyframes have been discussed quite a bit. The reason for  
> leaving them out (and I think it's a good reason) is because it  
> would require some sort of new value notation in CSS. You'd need to  
> specify the transition keyframes in terms of the from and to  
> property value. You can't use '%' because that notion is already  
> used in CSS. So you need new syntax, new value types and new  
> semantics about where this new syntax can be used and how it is  
> applied. I think there is some value in transition keyframes for  
> some applications. But I don't think it's nearly important enough  
> given the work to define it. Perhaps later, but I don't think it  
> should be included in this revision of the spec.

This is one of the things I mentioned as well.  To me, it would be  
worth the work.
Received on Wednesday, 7 April 2010 18:46:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:34 UTC