Re: [web-anim] Web animations minutes, 31 October 2012

On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 11:15 PM, Shane Stephens <> wrote:
> Thanks for your response and explanation.
> It's clear that the two should sit at separate cascade levels, to clarify
> which wins in the case of an overlap. But it still isn't clear to me that
> the cascade levels should be non-adjacent.
> Is there a strong desire for transitions to sit as high in the cascade as
> possible? What does it buy us? Would it be acceptable to put transitions
> directly above animations, and below the user stylesheet?

Basically, if transitions are directly above animations, then it's
*impossible* to transition to/between user!important or UA!important
rules (and maybe an author!important too, depending on the exact
placement).  That just kinda sucks.  "Technical purity" of having a
single override level should probably be below the ability cleanly and
easily author things that transition like normal, for authors and

> The problem we are anticipating in Web Animations is that it will be
> significantly more difficult to implement CSS Transitions and Animations
> using Web Animations components if the contributions of these two types of
> animation end up being influenced differently by user styles. Ideally we
> would like to see all of CSS Transitions, CSS Animations and SVG Animations
> acting in a unified manner on a web document to produce animated content.
> Obviously if there are strong reasons for this difference then we just need
> to cope, but absent a strong reason I think the desire within the FXTF to
> unify SVG Animations with CSS Transitions and Animations forms a reasonably
> strong reason to keep the cascade levels adjacent.

I'm not sure why, if it's okay to have distinct cascade levels, it's
hard to have the cascade levels be non-adjacent.


Received on Thursday, 1 November 2012 13:09:33 UTC