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

Re: transitions vs. animations

From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 19:49:01 -0400
To: www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <20100319234901.GA15261@pickering.dbaron.org>
On Friday 2010-03-19 16:22 -0700, Simon Fraser wrote:
> Tying transitions and animations together would very much restrict the flexibility of both,
> and unnecessarily constrain what authors can do.

I'm not sure that it's that constraining.

For example, I could imagine merging the properties as follows:

 * combine animation-name and transition-property using a functional
   syntax, like:
     animation-???: transition(color), keyframes(wobble)
   where 'animation-???: transition(color)' == 'transition-property: color'
   and 'animation-???: keyframes(wobble)' == 'animation-name: wobble'

 * make animation-duration, animation-delay, and
   animation-timing-function (and maybe also animation-play-state,
   if it's kept) apply to both types of animations (keyframe and
   transition)

 * make the other animation-* properties have no effect on
   transition animations (only affect keyframes)

Doing something like this would slightly increase the damage caused
by not having an additive cascading mechanism, but that's a problem
that's already present with both transitions and animations
separately.  We should probably be thinking about adding an additive
cascading mechanism:  it's useful here, for the opentype font
features, for counters, and likely a bunch of other things I'm
forgetting.

-David

-- 
L. David Baron                                 http://dbaron.org/
Mozilla Corporation                       http://www.mozilla.com/
Received on Friday, 19 March 2010 23:49:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:25 GMT