- From: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 14:44:00 -0400
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 7:41 AM, Mikko Rantalainen <mikko.rantalainen at peda.net> wrote: > I'm fine with in-page transitions using CSS but I don't think that > current page should be able to apply all available in-page transitions > for transitioning to another page. (In addition, it could be a bit hard > to describe how current and next document should transition when > currently available transitions deal with one element at a time.) You could just have the transition apply to the root element. > Currently loaded page should not cause transitioning to a new page to > take as long as the current page wishes. For example, user could type > new address into location bar or load a bookmark. Of course, the UA > could totally skip transitions in such special cases. I see in-page > transitions less dangerous than inter-page transitions because such > transitions affect exactly one URL; the inter-page transition should > exists to provide additional user hint about the document change and as > such, that should be more balanced between author control and UA > control. Currently in-page transitions are totally author controlled. Certainly pages should only be allowed to control transitions when the navigation is due to a link in the page or something else intrinsic to the page, not when the user types in the URL bar. I don't have a strong opinion on whether such transitions should be restricted further -- certainly browsers might want to cap the length, or allow users to disable them, or similar. > For example, if I have a wizard that logically forks to two different > paths, then rel="next" should not be used. Or at least > http://microformats.org/wiki/existing-rel-values describes "next" as > following: > > "Refers to the next document in a linear sequence of documents. User > agents may choose to preload the "next" document, to reduce the > perceived load time." > > Notice the word "linear". I think rel="maybe-next" would describe what > I'm thinking. Or perhaps rel="next" should be changed to mean "maybe next". It's pretty vague, so I think you could use it anyway. There's no hard requirement there. > Also note that rel="next" is not currently allowed for submit buttons at > all. So either rel="next" must be relaxed here, too, or we need a new > attribute. I'm fine with either choice. Well, we could allow rel here in principle. But more problematically, there's no way to specify a relation *or* CSS when navigating the page programmatically, like via document.location. I don't have a good answer here.
Received on Friday, 10 June 2011 11:44:00 UTC