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

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

From: Lea Verou <leaverou@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 06 May 2012 16:21:20 +0300
Message-ID: <4FA67AD0.6000000@gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On 6/5/12 15:56, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> 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.
`reverse` is, but I disagree about the others. `alternate` could mean 
many things (what alternates? how? which iterations are reversed?), and 
without reading the spec, I’d imagine it’s hard to guess what it does 
just from the syntax.
`alternate-reverse` is the worst. The naming is completely detached from 
what it does (reversing odd iterations).
`animation-reverse` (or `animation-iteration-reverse`) is 
straightforward, not prone to misinterpretation and much more extensible.
> 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.
In general, yes. But I’d argue that some properties are not used as much 
in the wild as animations in general. `animation-direction`, 
`animation-play-state` and `animation-fill-mode` fall in that bucket. 
However, without data, we’re all just speculating.

-- 
Lea Verou (http://lea.verou.me | @LeaVerou)
Received on Sunday, 6 May 2012 13:21:52 GMT

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