- From: Perry Smith <pedzsan@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2010 13:20:02 -0500
- To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Apr 7, 2010, at 12:20 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 10:13 AM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> > wrote: >> Aside: I think if the bounce involved 'left', then it would be >> overridden by >> the 'left' in the transition-property. At least, that makes the >> most sense >> to me. > > Really? I would think the opposite. The reason I'd like the > animation to override the transition is so I can express greater > control over the transition. > > For example, say all I want to do is transition 'left' on an element, > but I want it to do so by making it quickly fly from start to end, and > then bounce slightly before settling down. You can't express this > with any timing function (nor will you ever be able to, since it's > non-invertible). Potentially, I could do this by creating an > animation that does this, and then hooking it to a 'left' transition. > > To do this *properly*, of course, requires some way to refer to the > start and end values in an animation, and do math to them. You can't > do that right now, but I can see it being added in the future, and > wouldn't want to shut down the possibility of doing what I described > above. > > For now, since it's not very useful to manipulate the property you're > transitioning, I'd just recommend not doing so. I don't think it's a > problem right now to say "you probably don't want to do that", and > then later make it useful to do it. A third alternative would be an additive effect. e.g. if you specified more than one animation... perhaps that is too silly.
Received on Wednesday, 7 April 2010 18:20:40 UTC