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

Re: transitions vs. animations

From: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2010 21:03:21 -0700
Message-ID: <4D7DD80A92A546359406859184AF8D80@terra3>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
Cc: <www-style@w3.org>
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 7:59 PM
To: "Håkon Wium Lie" <howcome@opera.com>
Cc: <www-style@w3.org>
Subject: Re: transitions vs. animations

> 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 suspect that 'play-during' is too much.

So far the only useful case for it is page load animations. But for that it
is enough to have :ready state flag or so.

Therefore

    body:ready { play-in: ....; }

will do exactly what you need.

That :ready state flag is useful in other cases, e.g.

    frame:not(:ready) { background: url( loading-in-progress.gif ); }
    video:not(:ready) { ..... }
    img:not(:ready) { ..... }

    etc.

-- 
Andrew Fedoniouk

http://terrainformatica.com





 
Received on Thursday, 8 April 2010 04:03:55 GMT

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