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

Re: transitions vs. animations

From: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2010 02:04:25 +0200
Message-ID: <19389.7561.57646.34362@gargle.gargle.HOWL>
To: Chris Marrin <cmarrin@apple.com>
Cc: "www-style@w3.org list" <www-style@w3.org>
Also sprach Chris Marrin:

 > >   http://people.opera.com/howcome/2010/ta/index.html
 > 
 > Let me split this into two issues:

I agree that the proposal contains ideas that can be discussed
separately.

 > 1) Unified syntax for animation and transition
 > 
 > Here you are incorporating the animation-name property into the
 > single 'effect' shorthand. This gets rid of a few animation
 > properties, but at the expense of readability and increased
 > complexity.

I think the unified model is simpler, and more readable. Fewer
properties, fewer terms that can be confused.

I don't expect you to like any change proposals, though :)

 > What does it mean if I specify direction or iteration-count for a
 > transition?

I expect most humans to use the shorthand syntax where this is not an
issue. Also, it's not an issue if we use the functonal notation (as
suggested towards the end). The worst case is that the values have to
be ignored.

 > 2) Additional ways of triggering an animation
 > 
 > This is a good feature to discuss. I just don't think "on-exit" and
 > the related concepts are a clear way to express it.

How would you like to fill in the empty boxes?:

   http://people.opera.com/howcome/2010/ta/index.html

-h&kon
              Håkon Wium Lie                          CTO °þe®ª
howcome@opera.com                  http://people.opera.com/howcome
Received on Thursday, 8 April 2010 00:05:05 GMT

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