W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-archive@w3.org > March 2020

Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-animations-2] Specify the interaction between API methods and animation-* properties (#4822)

From: Robert Flack via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2020 03:54:06 +0000
To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-595015302-1583380444-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
> > The point I was wondering about was whether we drop point 4 altogether or simply the condition from point 4.
> 
> As I understand, your comment that "it should probably be sticky", would mean we should _not_ drop point 4 altogether. Either we should keep it, or we should modify it so that it is unconditional.

Correct, that is what I was suggesting.

> I'm a little averse to making it unconditional since I can imagine people wanting to `reverse()` an animation while still keeping it responsive to `animation-play-state`. That would suggest sticking with the original proposal.

Agreed. It's a little magical, but I think trying to avoid it has stranger ramifications.

> (And I forgot to include in the original proposal that replacing `animation.effect` altogether means that all changes to `animation-*` properties other than `animation-name` and `animation-play-state`, and all changes to `@keyframes` rules other than dropping the last matching `@keyframes` rule, would be ignored.)

I think this is reasonable.

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by flackr
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4822#issuecomment-595015302 using your GitHub account
Received on Thursday, 5 March 2020 03:54:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 06:42:02 UTC