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

Re: [css3-transitions] starting and reversing animations

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 11:55:36 -0600
Message-ID: <dd0fbad1001290955x2f7779a5y8d64bca8a9e1191@mail.gmail.com>
To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Cc: www-style <www-style@w3.org>
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 11:51 AM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote:
> On Friday 2010-01-29 10:05 -0600, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com> wrote:
>> > No, the transition properties are taken from the destination style.
>> Wow, that's *completely* unclear, and also different from what I had
>> gathered from examples used on the mailing list.  Yeah, in that case
>> examples are *absolutely required*, since there's no mention of that
>> anywhere in the spec and it runs contrary to what I would have
>> thought.
> Hmmm.  I attempted to explain that in the spec when I wrote:
>  # When the value of an animatable property changes,
>  # implementations must decide what transitions to start based on
>  # the values of the ‘transition-property’, ‘transition-duration’,
>  # ‘transition-timing-function’, and ‘transition-delay’ properties
>  # at the time of the change. Since this specification does not
>  # define what property changes are considered simultaneous,
>  # authors should be aware that changing any of the transition
>  # properties a small amount of time after making a change that
>  # might transition can result in behavior that varies between
>  # implementations, since the changes might be considered
>  # simultaneous in some implementations but not others.
> In the new "Starting of Transitions" section.
> However, rereading it, I now realize that "at the time of the
> change" is not clear at all.  What I meant to say is probably "at
> the time that would be immediately after the change if no
> transitions had been specified".  Does that make it clearer?

It risks being verbose enough to be incomprehensible unless you read
it very carefully, but it is at least precise and clear in meaning.

Received on Friday, 29 January 2010 17:56:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:31 UTC