- From: Sebastian Zartner <sebastianzartner@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2016 14:45:54 +0200
- To: Mark Straver <mark@wolfbeast.com>
- Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>, Xidorn Quan <quanxunzhen@gmail.com>, Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On 9 April 2016 at 02:17, Mark Straver <mark@wolfbeast.com> wrote: > > Hey Folks, > > On 09/04/2016 01:12, Sebastian Zartner wrote: > >> This has multiple, significant effects on animation, too. > >> "transparent" is no longer an animatable value (impossible to smoothly > >> move from it to any other color), so any gradient using "transparent" > >> stops being animatable too. To make it animatable, you have to > >> manually put in the two RGBA steps, which means you have to double-up > >> that step for any other gradient you're animating with this one. > > > > The same rules for gradient color transitions apply to animations. So > > it would still be animatable. > > Reusing the example from above the transtion between the colors would > > be rgba(255,0,0,1) @ 0% -> rgba(255,0,0,0) @ 50% -> rgba(0,0,255,0) @ > > 50% -> rgba(0,0,255,1) @ 100% for an animation like this: > > > [snip] > > I think Tab's main objection is that a transparent stop itself (especially > when "in the middle") would be more difficult to animate to another > (not-transparent) color because it would influence the surrounding gradients > rather sharply. Note that I was talking about animating plain colors, not gradients. Of course animating gradients requires more math when 'transparent' is special-cased, though it isn't that complicated either. Sebastian
Received on Sunday, 10 April 2016 12:46:41 UTC