- From: Robert Flack via GitHub <noreply@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 30 May 2025 13:55:05 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> My original concern about `cancel()` not cancelling things would still be addressed in this model since `cancel()` would work as usual. The only caveat is that if the user later scrolled etc. the animation might start whereas if `cancel()` disassociated triggers, that would no longer happen. I still think cancel should result in an animation no longer being triggered. When we add an animation to a trigger it sits in a paused state waiting for the trigger, and that explains why it is "relevant" and returned by getAnimations. When you cancel, the animation would no longer be paused right? It would be strange to have two states that a triggered animation could be in. -- GitHub Notification of comment by flackr Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/12119#issuecomment-2922467450 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Friday, 30 May 2025 13:55:07 UTC