W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > May 2012

Re: [css3-animations] animation-reverse: none | all | even | odd

From: François REMY <fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr>
Date: Sun, 6 May 2012 15:21:02 +0200
Message-ID: <39DF975684894FBD820686AD2D6A5006@FREMYD2>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "Sylvain Galineau" <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Cc: "Lea Verou" <leaverou@gmail.com>, "www-style list" <www-style@w3.org>
No offense, but actually I find it the new proposal harder to understand in 
the most common cases (alternate and reverse).

If we were really to change, I would choose something really simpler to 
visualize, like this:

    animation-pattern: abab; // normal
    animation-pattern: abba; // alternate
    animation-pattern: baba; // reverse
    animation-pattern: baab; // alternate reverse

But I don't know if this is really worth it, given I actually never wanted 
to use alternate-reverse when doing animations. Most of the time, I want 
normal or alternate. Since I don't have to specify normal, I only use 
'alternate' in my stylesheets, and 'alternate' is quite clear about what it 
does.




-----Message d'origine----- 
From: Tab Atkins Jr.
Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2012 2:56 PM
To: Sylvain Galineau
Cc: Lea Verou ; www-style list
Subject: Re: [css3-animations] animation-reverse: none | all | even | odd

On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Sylvain Galineau
<sylvaing@microsoft.com> wrote:
> Yes, this does feel much cleaner and simpler.

I disagree, actually.  I think that both "reverse" and "alternate" are
very clear names.  "alternate-reverse" isn't ideal, but it's not bad
either, and I don't know how to say it more cleanly.


> There already is content using
> animation-direction though. And here we get back in part of the prefix 
> controversy
> - 'Prefixes are there to enable this kind of change!'/'We shouldn't go 
> arbitrarily
> change what people are already using without a good reason!' - and as this 
> is one
> of the specs the group wants to unprefix yesterday this co-editor is torn. 
> We should
> talk about this at the f2f next week.

Yes, Animations is no longer in the "we can make aesthetic changes"
stage.  It left that a long time ago, we just didn't finish the spec
before that happened, like we're supposed to.

~TJ 
Received on Sunday, 6 May 2012 13:21:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:53 GMT