- 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