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

Re: transitions vs. animations

From: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 22:34:44 -0700
Cc: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-id: <CFC995DE-6F82-4694-AF09-2EC7579C083D@me.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
On Mar 19, 2010, at 9:57 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 9:32 PM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Is there no way to make it bounce on the unhover too?
> 
> Yes, though with some annoyance and unwanted effects.
> 
[snip]
> This appears to be a consequence of the tradeoffs that had to be made
> to have animations make sense when assigned to a single selector, when
> in reality they only make sense in terms of selector pairs (that is,
> state pairs).

The testcase was constructed to show how you may want to run an
animation and a transition at the same time, but it's not a natural
fit for animations.

However, most of the uses we've had for animations have been 
more of the "put the element into an animating state" kind, for
example ambient animations.

> A better solution might be to be able to tie an animation *to* a
> transition, so that it can work on the somewhat easier model that
> transitions use.  I'm not sure what a sensical syntax would be for
> this, though.

The best solution for this particular problem would be to allow
keyframes for transitions. This seems like an obvious addition,
until you realize that you'd like to be able to code your keyframes
using values that are computed relative to the end states, so you end up
requiring  weird units like percentages of percentages.

Simon
Received on Saturday, 20 March 2010 05:35:22 GMT

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