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

Re: Are CSS animations a done deal?

From: Chris Marrin <cmarrin@apple.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 10:14:48 -0700
Cc: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, www-style@w3.org, Lars Gunther <gunther@keryx.se>
Message-id: <6F50343B-B258-4B6C-B76C-0598F4AD2A41@apple.com>
To: robert@ocallahan.org

On Mar 29, 2010, at 8:20 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 3:17 PM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote:
> Why is that, if the end result is the same? Why not let the authors choose whatever means makes the most sense to them?
> 
> Obviously we're not going to "stop" authors from doing anything.
> 
> We are allowed to make recommendations, such as recommending that authors use CSS instead of the <font> element.
> 
> Flash-ad-style animations shouldn't be in CSS, since the animation is an essential part of the content.

Recommending that one technology be used rather than another is one thing, recommending that a certain technology (CSS Animation) not be included in the spec is another. It seems to me that this is what some (hopefully only a few) seem to be arguing for. CSS Animation provides an excellent tool for manipulating style over time that would be difficult or impossible with CSS Transitions. It has applications that are certainly presentational (like ambient backgrounds, pulsing buttons and the like). But there's no doubt authors will use it to do "Flash Animations". Authors misuse the technology all the time, occasionally with incredibly cool results.

-----
~Chris
cmarrin@apple.com
Received on Tuesday, 30 March 2010 17:15:21 GMT

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