- From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 12:01:10 -0800
- To: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>
- Cc: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Received on Tuesday, 22 December 2009 20:02:01 UTC
On Dec 22, 2009, at 11:00 AM, Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com> wrote: > these keyframes: > > @keyframes one { > from { } > 50% { left: 50px; top: 50px; } > to { left: 100px; } > } > > would be equivalent to these keyframes for this element: > > @keyframes one { > from { left: 25px; top: 25px; } > 50% { left: 50px; top: 50px; } > to { left: 100px; top: 25px; } > } > > We see value in using the unanimated value of the property to replace > missing values, because it allows the author to use keyframes to > animate > something to and from where it is now. I think this is more useful > than using > 'forward fill' logic. That seems good for the beginning keyframe(s) and the ending keyframe (s ). But I'm more ambivalent about it's appropriateness for when there is a missing declaration between two frames that do have a value for that property, like this one: # @keyframes one { # from { top: 100px; left: 100px; } # 50% { top: 200px; } # to { top: 100px; left: 300px; } # } Is that still useful to refer to the unanimated value in the middle of the animation, or is it just unexpected and missing out on a way to write shorter, cleaner code (where you only have to write the in- between values of the proprties that you want different from what would be automatically in-betweened)?
Received on Tuesday, 22 December 2009 20:02:01 UTC