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

Re: transitions vs. animations

From: Chris Marrin <cmarrin@apple.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2010 10:50:33 -0700
Message-id: <5FFF5075-F5F9-4442-BBE2-868EBA6A7CBE@apple.com>
To: "www-style@w3.org list" <www-style@w3.org>

On Apr 7, 2010, at 8:17 AM, Brad Kemper wrote:

>> ...- play-in animations are just finite
>> iterations, while play-during are infinite.  There is no concept of
>> "events" or "states" invented to handle them; they trigger purely
>> through CSS values changing, exactly like the current Animations
>> draft.  
> Animations play for anything that you can write a selector for, including one with no pseudo-class. The values do not need to change to trigger them; they can be there as soon as the element is loaded with its specified values. 

Here's the basic problem with Animations. Currently they are triggered by two things. If animation-name changes, the animation starts (unless it changes to none in which case any current animation stops). If play-state changes animation resumes (if set to running) or stops (if set to paused). That provides a range of use cases where a change in style causes an animation to start or stop. But it doesn't provide for use cases where a one-shot animation wants to be retriggered again after it has run (as in Simon's slide+bounce use case). Solving that one problem would enable many more use cases and would bring animations closer to the transition model.

Received on Wednesday, 7 April 2010 17:51:09 UTC

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