W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > May 2013

Re: [css-animations] CSS animations and non-interactive media

From: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 09:16:23 -0700
Message-ID: <CAGN7qDAdBRaLREqh8Tca7ve9PVaLxZh4St+A69VkvSVOp=+sEw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
What if someone used 'animation-fill-mode: backwards' with an infinite
'animation-delay'?
The animation wouldn't be running at print time but there would be a
reasonable expectation that the first keyframe was applied.


On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 8:33 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>wrote:

> On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 8:53 PM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote:
> > http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-animations/ is currently not clear on
> > what CSS animations should do in non-interactive media.  (The
> > "Media" lines in the spec are almost certainly wrong.)
> >
> > For example, when printing, what happens to CSS animations?  There
> > are two obvious choices:
> >
> >   (1) ignore the animation properties and don't apply any animations
> >
> >   (2) honor the animation properties and freeze the animations at
> >       time 0
> >
> > I tend to think the correct answer is (1); this allows authors to
> > get reasonable fallback when the initial state of their animation is
> > offscreen or similarly useless, and it matches the fallback they
> > already (should) have for implementations that don't support CSS
> > animations.
> >
> > (It's not what Gecko currently implements, but I'm thinking of
> > changing it.)
>
> This sounds correct to me.  Non-interactive media simply can't
> *implement* animations, so they should be handled like anything else
> that isn't implemented, and summarily ignored.
>
> ~TJ
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 28 May 2013 16:16:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 28 May 2013 16:16:59 UTC