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 13:11:20 -0700
Message-Id: <2A948F73-8688-4135-B9BC-721531D41A9A@gmail.com>
To: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>
Cc: HÃ¥kon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, "www-style@w3.org list" <www-style@w3.org>
On Apr 9, 2010, at 10:46 AM, Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com> wrote:

> Changing opacity from 1 to something less than 1 can have very  
> obvious side effects: because opacity creates stacking context,  
> itcan change the layering of elements on the page.

Oh yeah. Black to rgba(0,0,0,0.999) then.

>
>> But that seemed more likely to illicit charges of being too- 
>> hackish, which I will probably now receive anyway.
>
> It's hackish  :)
>
> I think we need to avoid a proposal that forces authors to fake a  
> transition in order to get an animation effect.

It's really more of a proof that inserting an animation into a  
transition, to trigger when the transition does, is a powerful way to  
solve the main use cases, and can also help with other (possibly  
edge-) cases in a pinch. I like that much of it more than I like  
trying to twist 'animation' into double duty to fulfil the purposes of  
transitions, and I like it better than adding start-, during-, and  
after- into animations. I realize it isn't all that elegant in it's  
present form in terms of those cases where I got hackish, but I  
thought it was a start that might be further improved along the  
direction it's going.
Received on Friday, 9 April 2010 20:12:07 GMT

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