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

Re: transitions vs. animations

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2010 19:59:38 -0700
Message-ID: <p2idd0fbad1004071959i8b8ebbb6q9ed096bd97c04e56@mail.gmail.com>
To: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
Cc: "www-style@w3.org list" <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 6:28 PM, Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com> wrote:
> Also sprach Tab Atkins Jr.:
>  > .two {
>  >   position: relative;
>  >   left: 500px;
>  >   play-during: sway 1s 1s;
>  > }
>  >
>  > /* Delay added to make it wait until the transition is done. */
> So, the only difference between 'play-in' and 'play-during' is that
> 'play-during' has 'infinite' as an implicit value?

Also, play-in animations won't run on page-load, if some element has
them set on it.  play-during animations will.

> I think your syntax looks good, it's quite readable.
> I don't like having *four* sets of properties (transition, play-in,
> play-during, play-out) that all can accept comma-separated values.

Yeah, Elika brought that up too.  I think this is the cleanest way to
express them, though, and it helps with the "additive cascade" problem
somewhat - you can't accidentally clobber your play-during animations
by specifying a play-in animation.

> And I don't like that the "transition" name (which is hard to spell)
> is still in there. May I suggest that you rename "transition" to
> "effect" (or something) in your proposal?
> Håkon's naming priciple: Good names are better than correct names.

I have no particular attachment to the current name.

Received on Thursday, 8 April 2010 03:00:31 UTC

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