W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-fx@w3.org > April to June 2015

Re: [motion-path] More natural names for 'auto' and 'reverse'

From: Shane Stephens <shans@google.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 06:47:43 +0000
Message-ID: <CAGTfzwSR7-uYc7QZS7G_VvtMwHWiG6=9tLjVf6MnEf1zh-tCxg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kari Pihkala <kari.pihkala@gmail.com>, Amelia Bellamy-Royds <amelia.bellamy.royds@gmail.com>
Cc: "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 4:20 PM Kari Pihkala <kari.pihkala@gmail.com> wrote:

> 2015-06-22 7:27 GMT+03:00 Amelia Bellamy-Royds <
> amelia.bellamy.royds@gmail.com>:
> > Keywords also complicate the animatability of the property.  And since
> this
> > property is all about animation, that should be a significant factor.
>
> You could simplify animatability even further by removing the angle
> from motion-rotation. It can be written as a transform:
>
> 0% { motion-offset: 0; }
> 40% { motion-offset: 100%; }
> 50% { motion-offset: 100%; transform: rotate(180deg); }
> 90% { motion-offset: 0; transform: rotate(180deg); }
> 100% { motion-offset: 0; }
>
> Animating a property with only one purpose (animation-rotation: auto
> without the angle) is simpler than animating a dual-purpose property
> (auto+angle).
>

This would also suggest that motion-rotation only take 'auto' or 'none',
and not be directly animatable (it would be impossible to represent
intermediate values of animations between 'auto' and 'auto-reverse').


> If the CSS Transform Module Level 2 [1] had 'motion' before 'rotate',
> then the example could be even simpler:
>
> 0% { motion-offset: 0; }
> 40% { motion-offset: 100%; }
> 50% { motion-offset: 100%; rotate: 180deg; }
> 90% { motion-offset: 0; rotate: 180deg; }
> 100% { motion-offset: 0; }
>
> I find it a bit weird that [1] defines 'translate', 'rotate' and
> 'scale' to be before 'motion', not after. Usually, you don’t want to
> rotate or scale the entire motion-path.
>

I think this is so that you *can* move the motion path if you need to. If
motion came first then you'd need to resort to nested divs or similar.

Also, should 'motion-rotation’ be 'motion-rotate' to match ’rotate’?
> Will the different ways to name things be confusing?
>

Yes, I think it probably should. I'll update it along with any other
changes that come out of this thread.

Cheers,
    -Shane


> BR,
> Kari
>
> [1] http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-transforms-2/
>
Received on Monday, 22 June 2015 06:48:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:49:54 UTC