W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2010

Re: transitions vs. animations

From: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>
Date: Sun, 04 Apr 2010 12:19:57 -0700
Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, www-style@w3.org, Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
Message-id: <600B2409-1A59-4400-ADC5-CD68D0B739C9@me.com>
To: Perry Smith <pedzsan@gmail.com>

On Apr 4, 2010, at 11:23 am, Perry Smith wrote:

> Perhaps instead of calling them 'states' or 'state changes', call them 'events'.  I'm new to this list so I don't understand Håkon's statement, "We'd like to do this without adding an event model to CSS."  It may be that my way of thinking opens a can of worms that has already been discussed.
> First, it solves Simon's concerns because the event would not happen when a class is added or removed.
> And, while it might make some people's head spin, it seems like calling them 'events' addresses Anne's concerns too.
> Feel free to shorten my names but lets start with:
>  'when-pointed-to' to mean when a person moves the mouse to a particular element
>  'when-pointed-away-from' to mean when the mouse is moved away
>  'when-focused-on' to mean when an element gains focus
>  'when-focused-off' to mean when an element loses focus
>  etc

You're focusing on state changes related to user interaction (:hover, :focus etc) here. In reality, transition-rich content is using states in way often not directly related to hover or focus; such content uses JS to manipulate the content by applying class names, and I think if we extend CSS to fire "events" for arbitrary selectors, then we're on a path to insanity.


Received on Sunday, 4 April 2010 19:20:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:07:44 UTC