- From: Brendan Kenny <bckenny@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2010 09:20:18 -0500
- To: Paul Bakaus <paul.bakaus@googlemail.com>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org, public-fx@w3.org
There was a proposal a while back for adding "step" timing functions to avoid that ugly bezier hack: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Feb/0212.html but they don't appear to have been added yet (to the current draft, at least). I'm not sure about the syntax, but I think the keyframe selector you suggest seems like a great idea even beyond sprite-like animations. It's fairly common, regardless of timing function, to want to specify an animation as a number of keyframes spread out evenly over the duration of the animation. Having to adjust the percentages as one adds or removes keyframes seems needless in that case. I know the "to" and "from" keywords come from SMIL, but is there something like a calcMode of "paced", but where the timing function can still be arbitrary? On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 3:40 AM, Paul Bakaus <paul.bakaus@googlemail.com> wrote: > Hi, > I've recently explored CSS Animations to a great extent, and it struck me > that there's no way to do single frame based animating as it is. This means > there's no current way to do Sprite animations, for instance, in pure CSS. > There's a more than hacky solution to the problem, which would require the > animation-easing-function to be more configurable so you can create an > easing that is actually no curve anymore, so it "jumps" from one keyframe to > another. However, I had a better idea to deal with non-keyframe animating: > Instead of the current ruleset of from/to/PERCENTAGE in @keyframes, how > about introducing a #{digit} syntax? This would allow for sprite animations > such as the following: > @keyframes driving-car { > #1 { > background-position-y: 0px; > } > #2 { > background-position-y: -100px; > } > #3 { > background-position-y: -200px; > } > #4 { > background-position-y: -300px; > } > } > It would probably make sense to change the wording "@keyframes" though to > not be too confusing. It looks like a pretty simple change with a dramatic > impact. > What do you think? > Thanks, > Paul > > Paul Bakaus > --- > CTO > Dextrose AG > -- > +49 (0)6131 275488 > -- > http://paulbakaus.com > http://www.linkedin.com/in/paulbakaus >
Received on Tuesday, 6 July 2010 14:20:54 UTC