W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-archive@w3.org > October 2019

Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-transforms-2] Serialization of individual transform when the animation is at 0% or 100% (#3290)

From: CSS Meeting Bot via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2019 16:52:17 +0000
To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-545536815-1571849536-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
The CSS Working Group just discussed `Serialization of individual transform when the animation is at 0% or 100%`, and agreed to the following:

* `RESOLVED: We return the values the animation is working on while the animation is going and that includes the endpoints per the definition in web animations`

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;dael> Topic: Serialization of individual transform when the animation is at 0% or 100%<br>
&lt;dael> github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/3290<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: Also from heycam.<br>
&lt;dael> AmeliaBR: Overview. When interpolating transform functions you often first need to do processing to upgrade function into a form that interpolates with other end. At exact moment when at beginning or end of animations or in frozen animation state is serialization using the upgraded functions or is it using the original as specified functions for the endpoint<br>
&lt;dael> AmeliaBR: There are wpt tests that do it one way and someone expected the other. Not sure who does what<br>
&lt;dael> dbaron: This can influence transitions, like if you reverse when it's filling you might get different behavior. I've seen that in the past, though maybe rules have been fixed to avoid some of those cases<br>
&lt;dael> smfr: I wouldn't expect function upgrading for animation would effect serialization.<br>
&lt;dael> AmeliaBR: The issue is specifically about individual transforms and upgrading the none keyword. Not sure how it compares to functions in transform property. I would expect consistancy<br>
&lt;dael> dbaron: I was thinking of transform property, not functions.<br>
&lt;dael> AmeliaBR: My fault for skimming too quick<br>
&lt;dael> smfr: I understand now the endpoint there's ambig. about if you use upgraded functions<br>
&lt;dbaron> s/not functions/not individual transform properties/<br>
&lt;dael> TabAtkins: Individual transform properties, given the previous resolution that we should serialize to lowest state I think this answer the question. not for none but the ones that are 3d ot 2d there is an upgrade in the middle. If a none value should serialize as the null value or not when it's an endpoint<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: We should resolve on the endpoints not upgrading first?<br>
&lt;dael> AmeliaBR: There is a switch inbetween a none vlue and any other value has side effects. Despite previous resolution actual transform side effects are clearly defined. translate: 0 0 has side effects that translate: none does not. Can't just ignore that as a rule<br>
&lt;dael> AmeliaBR: If you're in an animation from a transform to antoher value the side effects persist as long as the animation. Makes sense as long as animation persists you have an explicit value instead of none<br>
&lt;dbaron> +1 to what AmeliaBR (IRC) just said<br>
&lt;dael> TabAtkins: Agree. If animation is active we should preserve that there is a transform b/c none has a lack of side effects<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/3290#issuecomment-539719709<br>
&lt;dael> TabAtkins: Further issue is ^<br>
&lt;dael> TabAtkins: There's an example where one endpoint has non-normalize rotation, but during animation we do axis normalization. If it's active do we return normalized or specified non-normalized? Fine with consistent where when animation is running we report the animation's value.<br>
&lt;dael> smfr: Does WebANimations have soething to say?<br>
&lt;dael> TabAtkins: Yes, it has to report if there is an active animation. NOt sure if it has details about this issue. It knows if an animation is running<br>
&lt;dael> smfr: May be a case where we jsut want consistency<br>
&lt;dael> TabAtkins: Agree, everything except none case is consistency. I think that leans us to take value animation is working on, not the endpoint value<br>
&lt;dael> smfr: Sounds fine to me<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: Prop is we return the values the animation is working on while the animation is going and that includes the endpoints per the definition in web animations<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: Any concerns with this change?<br>
&lt;dael> astearns: Objections?<br>
&lt;dael> RESOLVED: We return the values the animation is working on while the animation is going and that includes the endpoints per the definition in web animations<br>
</details>


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/3290#issuecomment-545536815 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 23 October 2019 16:52:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 06:41:55 UTC