- From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2012 14:11:22 +0000
- To: Dean Jackson <dino@apple.com>, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: Øyvind Stenhaug <oyvinds@opera.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
[Dean Jackson:] > > > On 02/02/2012, at 5:36 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 5:30 AM, Øyvind Stenhaug <oyvinds@opera.com> > wrote: > >> On Thu, 02 Feb 2012 01:58:33 +0100, Sylvain Galineau > >> <sylvaing@microsoft.com> wrote: > >>> I assume animation-iteration-count:0 means no animation occurs and > >>> no animation events are thrown regardless of duration and delay. > >>> > >>> Does animation-fill-mode have any effect in this case? > >> > >> When I raised this back in > >> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Oct/0107.html>, > >> David argued that it would make sense to avoid a discontinuity at 0. > >> With that reasoning, > >> > >> - start event and end event should dispatch at the end of the delay > >> - fill mode 'backwards'/'both' should have an effect during the delay > >> phase > >> - fill mode 'forwards'/'both' should have an effect after the delay > >> phase > > > > I agree with dbaron that this is the ideal behavior. > > Me too. It's pretty simple to understand. > Great. One asserts it's ideal, the other it's simple. I don't think it's either :) I don't think it's that obvious, and neither do the implementors here asking the question; I'd like the people who it is to explain why it's obvious and/or better than the alternative. I also don't understand why it's important to avoid a discontinuity on something that's unlikely to be iterated on.
Received on Sunday, 5 February 2012 14:12:05 UTC