W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > July 2011

Re: [css3-animations] Effect of display:none and visibility:hidden on animations

From: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 21:43:42 -0700
Message-ID: <CAGN7qDBkJUxOk5hKro0z2d00KqzLvzrk7dxQpLXuYXUEwrdp0Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Why is it not worthwhile?
Do you believe that the browser implementation will get too complex?

The current spec is only good for very simple content. I believe that it
will be much more powerful with a couple of small changes.
If people don't like 'display: none', maybe we can introduce another keyword
(like 'onstage: true/false') to accomplish the same thing.


On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 5:09 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Sylvain Galineau
> <sylvaing@microsoft.com> wrote:
> > Your proposal suggests to me that we’re missing an animation API. Authors
> > shouldn’t have to monkey around with display and create display:none
> frames
> > for the purpose of achieving synchronization. To be more specific, I
> would
> > like scenarios like these to be addressed as part of proposals such as
> > Dean’s here
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Apr/0058.html.
> I strongly agree.  I don't think it's worthwhile to do any more with
> animation synchronization in CSS than we already do.  More complex
> synch cases should be done in JS with an API built for that purpose,
> that lets you explicitly chain animations end-to-end, make multiple
> animations start at the same time, etc.
> ~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 20 July 2011 04:44:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:47 UTC