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

Re: transitions vs. animations

From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 12:43:18 -0700
Message-Id: <A6A4C7FB-9CF2-4389-BF6D-189C4C5E3C14@gmail.com>
To: Chris Marrin <cmarrin@apple.com>
Cc: "www-style@w3.org list" <www-style@w3.org>

On Apr 9, 2010, at 10:25 AM, Chris Marrin <cmarrin@apple.com> wrote:

> On Apr 9, 2010, at 7:09 AM, Brad Kemper wrote:
>> On Apr 9, 2010, at 1:50 AM, HÃ¥kon Wium Lie wrote:
>>> All are shorter, easier to spell, and will not be confused with
>>> 'transform'.
>> If I were going to start changing 'trans***" words, I'd start with  
>> 'transform', which is math-speak for "move". For avoiding  
>> confusion, I support changing "animation-duration" to "animation- 
>> period".
> "transform" is much more than "move". It encompasses translation,  
> scale, rotate, skew, perspective, combinations of those and even a  
> few interesting transformations that can't be represented by those  
> primitives. As for "transform" being too close to "translation", I  
> don't share your confusion and I think it would be a mistake to  
> change the name to something less descriptive because they look a  
> bit close to you. Just look at them for a while, you'll get used to  
> it :-)

Sorry. I meant to say 'translate', not 'transform'. This probably  
proves a point of some kind.

I agree about not going with less descriptive names. But I don't think  
"move" is less descriptive than "translate", just less geeky.
Received on Friday, 9 April 2010 19:44:11 UTC

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