- From: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>
- Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2010 08:01:49 -0700
- To: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
- Cc: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>, Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, www-style@w3.org
On Apr 4, 2010, at 8:02 pm, Andrew Fedoniouk wrote:
> I would propose following definition:
>
> Animation is a sequence (possibly endless, repeatable) of set of transitions.
>
> Consider this sample from current CSS Animation proposal:
>
> @keyframes 'wobble'
> {
> 0% { left: 100px; }
> 40% { left: 150px; }
> 60% { left: 75px; }
> 100% { left: 100px; }
> }
>
> And now imagine that you have some timing function that changes attribute "wobble" on some element.
> Having such function keyframe set above can be defined as:
>
> [wobble] { transition: left(sin-in-out, Ts); }
> [wobble=0%] { left: 100px; }
> [wobble=40%] { left: 150px; }
> [wobble=60%] { left: 75px; }
> [wobble=100%] { left: 100px; }
>
> I suspect that in principle the whole animation module can be replaced by single attribute that defines timed generator:
>
> sequence : attribute-name steps duration [ number-of-repeats];
>
> So if you will define something like
>
> div:hover
> {
> sequence: "wobble" 4 400ms forever;
> }
> div[wobble=0] { left: 100px; transition: ...; }
> div[wobble=1] { left: 150px; transition: ...; }
> div[wobble=2] { left: 75px; transition: ...;}
> div[wobble=3] { left: 100px; transition: ...;}
>
> you will be able to define various animations or other time based style changes.
This looks like a re-casting of the proposed animations with a different syntax, but I don't see how it addresses the desire to have transitions with reasonable fallback in older browsers.
Simon
Received on Monday, 5 April 2010 15:02:25 UTC