- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2010 12:07:22 -0700
- To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Cc: Perry Smith <pedzsan@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 11:39 AM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote: > My reason for going the other way was that the transition is based on the > changed value of 'left'. If you say that the inner animation overrides that, > then there is no longer a left value to transition. I think what you realy > want is to multiply the two together for the final animated effect, and > that's more like what you describe. That would seem to complicate computed > values, but works for me. The idea is to just imagine a normal transition as being an instantaneously-created animation with appropriate start and end values set. Then further animations can override it like normal. An animation running won't prevent a transition from firing. Animations change the value on a lower level than what triggers a transition. >> 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. > > We should define what it does. Agreed - the definition of it should be that, if a transition-animation manipulates the property that it is attached to the transition of (that is, if you have "transition: left 1s play(bounce 1s);" and the bounce keyframe manipulates 'left'), the actual transition of 'left' is overriden by the animation. ~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 7 April 2010 19:08:16 UTC